Progressive Resistance Training or Neuromuscular Exercise for Hip Osteoarthritis : A Multicenter Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Exercise is recommended as first-line treatment for patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA). However, randomized controlled trials providing evidence for the optimal exercise type are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether progressive resistance training (PRT) is superior to neuromuscular exercise (NEMEX) for improving functional performance in patients with hip OA. DESIGN: Multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04714047). SETTING: Hospitals and physiotherapy clinics. PARTICIPANTS: 160 participants with clinically diagnosed hip OA were enrolled from 18 January 2021 to 28 April 2023 and randomly assigned to PRT (n = 82) or NEMEX (n = 78). INTERVENTION: Twelve weeks of PRT or NEMEX with 2 supervised 60-minute group sessions each week. The PRT intervention consisted of 5 high-intensity resistance training exercises targeting muscles at the hip and knee joints. The NEMEX intervention included 10 exercises and emphasized sensorimotor control and functional stability. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was change in the 30-second chair stand test (30s-CST). Key secondary outcomes were changes in scores on the pain and hip-related quality of life (QoL) subscales of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). RESULTS: The mean changes from baseline to 12-week follow-up in the 30s-CST were 1.5 (95% CI, 0.9 to 2.1) chair stands with PRT and 1.5 (CI, 0.9 to 2.1) chair stands with NEMEX (difference, 0.0 [CI, -0.8 to 0.8] chair stands). For the HOOS pain subscale, mean changes were 8.6 (CI, 5.3 to 11.8) points with PRT and 9.3 (CI, 5.9 to 12.6) points with NEMEX (difference, -0.7 [CI, -5.3 to 4.0] points). For the HOOS QoL subscale, mean changes were 8.0 (CI, 4.3 to 11.7) points with PRT and 5.7 (CI, 1.9 to 9.5) points with NEMEX (difference, 2.3 [CI, -3.0 to 7.6] points). LIMITATION: Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded. CONCLUSION: In patients with hip OA, PRT is not superior to NEMEX for improving functional performance, hip pain, or hip-related QoL. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Independent Research Fund Denmark.

EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: 2023 update.

INTRODUCTION: Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are increasingly common with a significant impact on individuals and society. Non-pharmacological treatments are considered essential to reduce pain and improve function and quality of life. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee OA were published in 2013. Given the large number of subsequent studies, an update is needed. METHODS: The Standardised Operating Procedures for EULAR recommendations were followed. A multidisciplinary Task Force with 25 members representing 14 European countries was established. The Task Force agreed on an updated search strategy of 11 research questions. The systematic literature review encompassed dates from 1 January 2012 to 27 May 2022. Retrieved evidence was discussed, updated recommendations were formulated, and research and educational agendas were developed. RESULTS: The revised recommendations include two overarching principles and eight evidence-based recommendations including (1) an individualised, multicomponent management plan; (2) information, education and self-management; (3) exercise with adequate tailoring of dosage and progression; (4) mode of exercise delivery; (5) maintenance of healthy weight and weight loss; (6) footwear, walking aids and assistive devices; (7) work-related advice and (8) behaviour change techniques to improve lifestyle. The mean level of agreement on the recommendations ranged between 9.2 and 9.8 (0-10 scale, 10=total agreement). The research agenda highlighted areas related to these interventions including adherence, uptake and impact on work. CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 updated recommendations were formulated based on research evidence and expert opinion to guide the optimal management of hip and knee OA.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of an exercise and education programme for osteoarthritis: a qualitative study using the consolidated framework for implementation research.

Targeted efforts to better understand the barriers and facilitators of stakeholders and healthcare settings to implementation of exercise and education self-management programmes for osteoarthritis (OA) are needed. This study aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D), a supervised group guideline-based OA programme, across Irish public and private healthcare settings. Interviews with 10 physiotherapists (PTs; 8 public) and 9 people with hip and knee OA (PwOA; 4 public) were coded by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs in a case memo (summary, rationale, quotes). The strong positive/negative implementation determinants were identified collaboratively by rating the valence and strength of CFIR constructs on implementation. Across public and private settings, PTs and PwOA strongly perceived GLA:D Ireland as evidence-based, with easily accessible education and modifiable marketing/training materials that meet participants' needs, improve skills/confidence and address exercise beliefs/expectations. Despite difficulties in scheduling sessions (e.g., work/caring responsibilities), PTs in public and private settings perceived advantages to implementation over current clinical practice (e.g., shortens waiting lists). Only PTs in public settings reported limited availability of internal/external funding, inappropriate space, marketing/training tools, and inadequate staffing. Across public and private settings, PwOA reported adaptability, appropriate space/equipment and coaching/supervision, autonomy, and social support as facilitators. Flexible training and tailored education for stakeholders and healthcare settings on guideline-based OA management may promote implementation. Additional support on organising (e.g., scheduling clinical time), planning (e.g., securing appropriate space, marketing/training tools), and funding (e.g., accessing dedicated internal/external grants) may strengthen implementation across public settings.

Follow-up of individualised physical activity on prescription and individualised advice in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the long-term effects of two different individualised physical activity interventions in hip or knee osteoarthritis patients. DESIGN: Randomised, assessor-blinded, controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care. SUBJECTS: Patients with clinically verified hip or knee osteoarthritis, <150 min/week with moderate or vigorous physical activity, aged 40-74. INTERVENTION: The advice group (n = 69) received a 1-h information and goalsetting session for individualised physical activity. The prescription group (n = 72) received information, goalsetting, individualised written prescription, self-monitoring, and four follow-ups. MAIN MEASURES: Physical activity, physical function, pain and quality of life at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: There were only minor differences in outcomes between the two groups. For self-reported physical activity, the advice group had improved from a mean of 102 (95% CI 74-130) minutes/week at baseline to 214 (95% CI 183-245) minutes/week at 24 months, while the prescription group had improved from 130 (95% CI 103-157) to 176 (95% CI 145-207) minutes/week (p = 0.01 between groups). Number of steps/day decreased by -514 (95% CI -567-462) steps from baseline to 24 months in the advice group, and the decrease in the prescription group was -852 (95% CI -900-804) steps (p = 0.415 between groups). Pain (HOOS/KOOS) in the advice group had improved by 7.9 points (95% CI 7.5-8.2) and in the prescription group by 14.7 points (95% CI 14.3-15.1) from baseline to 24 months (p = 0.024 between groups). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that individualised physical activity on prescription differs from individualised advice in improving long-term effects in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis.

Efficacy of home-based exercise in the treatment of pain and disability at the hip and knee in patients with osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: An increasing body of evidence suggests that home-based exercise (HBE) therapy has significant therapeutic effects on knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and hip osteoarthritis (HipOA), and it has advantages such as cost savings, strong operability, and good compliance compared with hospitalization and exercise courses. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of HBE in the treatment of KOA and HipOA. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Embase to collect randomized controlled trials. The retrieval time was from database establishment until March 6, 2024. Stata 15.1 software was used for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 16 randomized controlled trials involving 3,015participants were included, with 1,519 participants in the intervention group and 1,496 in the control group. The meta-analysis showed that, compared to the control group, HBE can significantly improve pain [SMD=-0.38, 95% CI (-0.58, -0.18); P = 0.001], joint function [SMD=-0.60, 95% CI (-1.01, -0.19); P = 0.004], balance ability [SMD=-0.67, 95% CI (-1.00, -0.34); P = 0.001], mobility (ADL) [SMD = 0.51, 95% CI (0.19, 0.82); P = 0.002] in patients with KOA and HipOA. There is no statistical difference in the improvement of joint stiffness [WMD = -0.80, 95% CI (-1.61, 0.01); P = 0.052]. In addition, subgroup analysis showed that HBE significantly improved pain, joint function, and balance ability in KOA patients compared with the control group. HipOA patients showed significant improvement in pain and joint function; However, HBE only improved activity ability in patients with comorbidities of KOA and HipOA. CONCLUSION: HBE can effectively alleviate pain, improve joint function, and enhance physical function in patients with KOA and HipOA. However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with large sample sizes and long-term interventions are needed to validate the efficacy of HBE due to limitations in the methodology and consistency of indicator outcomes in the included RCTs. REGISTRATION NUMBER: We've registered with PROSPERO, and the number is CRD42023443085.

OARSI year in review 2023: Rehabilitation and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed the literature to identify comparative studies of core treatments (exercise, education, or weight management), adjunct treatments (e.g. electrotherapeutical modalities, bracing), or multimodal treatments (core plus other treatments), for treating osteoarthritis (OA) complaints, published between 1 March 2022 and 1 March 2023. DESIGN: We searched three electronic databases for peer-reviewed comparative studies evaluating core treatments, adjunct treatments, or multimodal treatments for OA affecting any joint, in comparison to other OA treatments. Two authors independently screened records. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. A narrative synthesis focusing on pain and function outcomes was performed in studies with a mean sample size of at least 46 participants per treatment arm. RESULTS: 33 publications (28 studies), 82% with PEDro ratings of good or excellent, were eligible for narrative synthesis: 23 studies evaluated knee OA; one knee OA or chronic low back pain; two knee or hip OA; one hip OA only; and one thumb OA. No studies identified a dose, duration or type of exercise that resulted in better pain or function outcomes. Core treatments generally showed modest benefits compared to no or minimal intervention controls. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation research continues to be focused on the knee. Most studies are not adequately powered to assess pain efficacy. Further work is needed to better account for contextual effects, identify treatment responder characteristics, understand treatment mechanisms, and implement guideline care.

[Physical rehabilitation for degenerative-dystrophic diseases of the hip joint in elderly and senile people (stage 1).]

Changes in the age structure of the planet's population are leading to an increase in the number of geriatric patients requiring replacement of large joints. Age-related weakness, loss of muscle mass, testosterone deficiency, excess weight, and the presence of concomitant diseases make the process of rehabilitation treatment labor-intensive and lead to various complications. The purpose of our work was to evaluate the effectiveness of the modernized method of physical therapy at the first stage of rehabilitation treatment in elderly and senile patients with osteoarthritis of the hip joint. All patients received standard complex therapy, including orthopedic treatment methods, drug therapy, myostimulation, massage, and manual therapy. For patients in the main group, in addition to the traditional complex, the method of physical therapy according to the stated method was added and it was recommended to wear compression hosiery (stockings) while performing the exercises. The advantage of the technique is the absence of complications and side effects, which is an important component compared to other methods of restorative treatment. Minimum costs, general availability and autonomy of performing exercises, high results achieved during the treatment process confirm the value and importance of creating similar techniques for other large joints. The developed method of physical therapy has shown its effectiveness and relevance among elderly patients and can be recommended for use among different population groups as a method of restorative treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip joint.

Evaluation of a collaborative ambulatory orthopedic care program for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis: a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, the novel orthopedic care program was established by the AOK health insurance fund in southern Germany to improve ambulatory care for patients with musculoskeletal disorders. The program offers extended consultation times, structured collaboration between general practitioners and specialists, as well as a renewed focus on guideline-recommended therapies and patient empowerment. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the program on health service utilization in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study, which is based on claims data, evaluated health service utilization in patients with hip and knee OA from 2014 to 2017. The intervention group comprised OA patients enrolled in collaborative ambulatory orthopedic care, and the control group received usual care. The outcomes were participation in exercise interventions, prescription of physical therapy, OA-related hospitalization, and endoprosthetic surgery rates. Generalized linear regression models were used to analyze the effect of the intervention. RESULTS: Claims data for 24,170 patients were analyzed. Data for the 23,042 patients in the intervention group were compared with data for the 1,128 patients in the control group. Participation in exercise interventions (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.781; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.230-2.577; p = 0.0022), and overall prescriptions of physical therapy (Rate Ratio (RR): 1.126; 95% CI: 1.025-1.236; p = 0.0128) were significantly higher in the intervention group. The intervention group had a significantly lower risk of OA -related hospitalization (OR: 0.375; 95% CI: 0.290-0.485; p < 0.0001). Endoprosthetic surgery of the knee was performed in 53.8% of hospitalized patients in the intervention group vs. 57.5% in the control group; 27.7% of hospitalized patients underwent endoprosthetic surgery of the hip in the intervention group versus 37.0% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with hip and knee OA, collaborative ambulatory orthopedic care is associated with a lower risk of OA-related hospitalization, higher participation in exercise interventions, and more frequently prescribed physical therapy.

Immediate outcomes following the GLA:D® program in Denmark, Canada and Australia. A longitudinal analysis including 28,370 patients with symptomatic knee or hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To report outcomes across three countries for patients with symptomatic knee or hip OA attending the evidence-based education and exercise therapy program Good Life with osteoArthritis from Denmark (GLA:D®). DESIGN: GLA:D® is a structured treatment program including 2-3 patient education sessions and 12 supervised exercise sessions delivered over 8 weeks by certified health care practitioners. The program was introduced in Denmark in 2013, in Canada 2015 and in Australia 2016. Absolute mean change in pain intensity, number of chair stands in 30 s, 40 m walk test time and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)/Hip dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) QOL subscale scores from baseline to immediately after treatment were reported as means and 95 % CIs and proportion of responders for each country. RESULTS: Patients from the three countries improved 26-33% in mean pain intensity, 8-12% in walking speed, 18-30% in chair stand ability and 12-26% in joint-related quality of life from baseline to immediately after treatment, with no clinically relevant differences between patients with hip and knee OA. These improvements correspond with moderate to large within-group effect sizes and 43-47 % of the patients experienced clinically relevant pain reductions. CONCLUSION: About half or more of patients across the three countries were categorized as responders for pain and objective function following the implementation of GLA:D®. These findings indicate positive patient outcomes associated with GLA:D® participation across varying health care systems from implementation of guideline-based patient education and exercise therapy for knee and hip OA.

Are education, exercise and diet interventions a cost-effective treatment to manage hip and knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify research gaps and inform implementation we systematically reviewed the literature evaluating cost-effectiveness of recommended treatments (education, exercise and diet) for the management of hip and/or knee OA. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database, and EconLit from inception to November 2019 for trial-based economic evaluations investigating hip and/or knee OA core treatments. Two investigators screened relevant publications, extracted data and synthesized results. Risk of bias was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. RESULTS: Two cost-minimization, five cost-effectiveness and 16 cost-utility analyses evaluated core treatments in six health systems. Exercise therapy with and without education or diet was cost-effective or cost-saving compared to education or physician-delivered usual care at conventional willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds in 15 out of 16 publications. Exercise interventions were cost-effective compared to physiotherapist-delivered usual care in three studies at conventional WTP thresholds. Education interventions were not cost-effective compared to usual care or placebo at conventional WTP thresholds in three out of four publications. CONCLUSIONS: Structured core treatment programs were clinically effective and cost-effective, compared to physician-delivered usual care, in five health care systems. Providing education about core treatments was not consistently cost-effective. Implementing structured core treatment programs into funded clinical pathways would likely be an efficient use of health system resources and enhance physician-delivered usual primary care.

Associations between comorbidities and immediate and one-year outcomes following supervised exercise therapy and patient education - A cohort study of 24,513 individuals with knee or hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if comorbidities are associated with change in health outcomes following an 8-week exercise and education program in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We included 24,513 individuals with knee or hip OA from the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D®). GLA:D® consists of two patient education sessions and 12 supervised exercise sessions. Before the program, individuals self-reported having one or more of 11 common comorbidities. Physical function was assessed using the 40-m Fast-Paced Walk Test (FPWT, m/sec) before and immediately after the program. Pain intensity and health-related quality of life was self-reported before, immediately after, and at 12 months post-intervention using a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100) and the EQ-5D-5L index (-0.624 to 1.000), respectively. Associations of comorbidity combinations with change in outcomes immediately and at 12 months was estimated using mixed linear regression. RESULTS: Individuals with OA improved on average 0.12 m/s (95%CI 0.12 to 0.13) in 40-m FPWT, -12.7 mm (95%CI -13.2 to -12.2) in VAS, and 0.039 (95%CI 0.036 to 0.041) in EQ-5D-5L from before to immediately after the intervention with minor additional improvements at 12 months. Despite that individuals with comorbidities had worse baseline scores in all outcomes than individuals without comorbidities, they had similar levels of improvement immediately and 12 months after the intervention. CONCLUSION: Comorbidities are not associated with worse nor better health outcomes following an 8-week exercise and education program in individuals with OA, suggesting exercise as a viable treatment option for individuals with OA, irrespective of comorbidities.

Patients use fewer analgesics following supervised exercise therapy and patient education: an observational study of 16 499 patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate changes in analgesic use before and after supervised exercise therapy and patient education in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We recruited 16 499 of 25 933 eligible patients (64%; mean age 64.9; SD 9.6; 73% women) from the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D) registry. Change in proportions of analgesic users (categorised according to analgesic risk profile; opioids > non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs > paracetamol) was assessed from before to after an 8-week supervised exercise therapy and patient education programme targeting knee or hip OA pain and functional limitations. RESULTS: Patients reported 13.2 mm (95% CI 12.8 to 13.6) less pain (visual analogue scale 0-100 mm) at follow-up compared with baseline. The proportion of analgesic users reduced from 62.2% (95% CI 61.5 to 63.0) at baseline to 44.1% (95% CI 43.3 to 44.9) at follow-up (absolute change: 18.1% (95% CI 17.3 to 19.0)). Among patients using analgesics at baseline, 52% changed to a lower risk analgesic or discontinued analgesic use. The proportion of opioid users after the exercise therapy was 2.5% (95% CI 2.1 to 2.9) lower than baseline; this represents a relative reduction of 36%. CONCLUSION: Among patients with knee or hip OA using analgesics, more than half either discontinued analgesic use or shifted to lower risk analgesics following an 8-week structured exercise therapy and patient education programme (GLA:D). These data encourage randomised controlled trial evaluation of whether supervised exercise therapy, combined with patient education, can reduce analgesic use, including opioids, among patients with knee and hip OA pain.

Patient-reported quality indicators to evaluate physiotherapy care for hip and/or knee osteoarthritis- development and evaluation of the QUIPA tool.

BACKGROUND: There is no physiotherapy-specific quality indicator tool available to evaluate physiotherapy care for people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to develop a patient-reported quality indicator tool (QUIPA) for physiotherapy management of hip and knee OA and to assess its reliability and validity. METHODS: To develop the QUIPA tool, quality indicators were initially developed based on clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy practice and those of an existing generic OA quality indicator tool. Draft items were then further refined using patient focus groups. Test-retest reliability, construct validity (hypothesis testing) and criterion validity were then evaluated. Sixty-five people with hip and/or knee OA attended a single physiotherapy consultation and completed the QUIPA tool one, twelve- and thirteen-weeks after. Physiotherapists (n = 9) completed the tool post-consultation. Patient test-retest reliability was assessed between weeks twelve and thirteen. Construct validity was assessed with three predefined hypotheses and criterion validity was based on agreement between physiotherapists and participants at week one. RESULTS: A draft list of 23 clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy was developed. Following feedback from three patient focus groups, the final QUIPA tool contained 18 items (three subscales) expressed in lay language. The test-retest reliability estimates (Cohen's Kappa) for single items ranged from 0.30-0.83 with observed agreement of 64-94%. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Assessment and Management Planning subscale was 0.70 (0.54, 0.81), Core Recommended Treatments subscale was 0.84 (0.75, 0.90), Adjunctive Treatments subscale was 0.70 (0.39, 0.87) and for the total QUIPA score was 0.80 (0.69, 0.88). All predefined hypotheses regarding construct validity were confirmed. However, agreement between physiotherapists and participants for single items showed large measurement error (Cohen's Kappa estimates ranged from - 0.04-0.59) with the ICC (95% CI) for the total score being 0.11 (- 0.14, 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: The QUIPA tool showed acceptable test-retest reliability for subscales and total score but inadequate reliability for individual items. Construct validity was confirmed but criterion validity for individual items, subscales and the total score was inadequate. Further research is needed to refine the QUIPA tool to improve its clinimetric properties before implementation.

High self-efficacy - a predictor of reduced pain and higher levels of physical activity among patients with osteoarthritis: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Self-efficacy is considered a core component in self-management. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the association between self-efficacy and health-related outcomes in osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to investigate whether self-efficacy at baseline was associated with change over time in pain and physical activity after a supported osteoarthritis self-management programme. METHODS: A total of 3266 patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis attended this observational, register-based study. Self-efficacy was assessed using the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale. Pain was estimated on a visual analogue scale and physical activity by self-reporting number of days per week the patients were physically active ≥30 min. Data were self-reported at baseline and at follow-ups after 3 and 12 months. Analyses were performed using a mixed linear model analysis and are presented with an unadjusted and an adjusted model. RESULTS: High vs low self-efficacy for pain management at baseline resulted in reduced pain and increased physical activity at the follow-ups; least squares means and standard error were 37.43 ± 0.40 vs 44.26 ± 0.40, for pain, and 5.05 ± 0.07 vs 4.90 ± 0.08 for physical activity. High self-efficacy for management of other symptoms resulted in lower pain and higher physical activity at follow-up: 35.78 ± 0.71 vs 41.76 ± 0.71 for pain, and 5.08 ± 0.05 vs 4.72 ± 0.05 for physical activity. Patients with obesity reported lower activity levels at the follow-ups. CONCLUSION: Self-efficacy at baseline was associated with change over time in pain and physical activity at 3 and 12 months after the supported osteoarthritis self-management programme. High self-efficacy had a positive effect on pain and physical activity, indicating the need for exploring and strengthening patients' self-efficacy. Patients with obesity may need further interventions and support during a self-management programme to achieve an increase in physical activity.

A 12-item short form of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-12): tests of reliability, validity and responsiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate reliability, validity and responsiveness of HOOS-12, a 12-item short form of the 40-item Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). HOOS-12 provides Pain, Function and Quality of Life (QOL) scale scores and a summary hip impact score. DESIGN: Data from 1,273 FORCE-TJR hip osteoarthritis (OA) patients who completed HOOS before and six and 12 months after total hip replacement (THR) were analyzed. HOOS-12 includes a pain frequency item and three items measuring pain during increasingly difficult (sitting/lying, walking, stairs) activities; function items about standing, rising from sitting, getting in/out of a car, and walking on an uneven surface; and the 4-item HOOS QOL scale. Percent computable scale scores, floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency reliability, validity (scale correlations, tests of known groups validity using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)), and responsiveness (effect sizes (ES), standardized response means (SRM)) were compared for HOOS-12, full-length HOOS, HOOS-PS and HOOS, JR. RESULTS: Internal consistency reliability was above 0.70 for all HOOS-12 scales and above 0.90 for the HOOS-12 Summary score. Validity and responsiveness of HOOS-12 Pain, Function and QOL scales were satisfactory and reached similar conclusions as comparable full-length HOOS scales. The HOOS-12 Summary score was highly responsive in discriminating between groups who differed in global ratings of post-THR change in physical capabilities and had high ES and SRM standardized response means. CONCLUSIONS: HOOS-12 was a reliable and valid alternative to HOOS in THR patients with moderate to severe OA and provided three domain-specific and summary hip impact scores with substantially reduced respondent burden.

Item selection for 12-item short forms of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-12) and Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-12).

OBJECTIVE: To develop 12-item short forms (KOOS-12, HOOS-12) of the 42-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and 40-item Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) that represent the full-length instruments sufficiently to provide joint-specific pain, function and quality of life (QOL) domain and summary joint impact scores. This paper describes KOOS-12 and HOOS-12 item selection. Subsequent papers will examine KOOS-12 and HOOS-12 reliability, validity and responsiveness. DESIGN: Items were selected based on qualitative information from patients, clinicians and KOOS/HOOS translators and analysis of data from 1,395 knee osteoarthritis (OA) and 1,281 hip OA patients from the FORCE-TJR cohort who completed KOOS or HOOS before and after total joint replacement (TJR). Item response theory models and computerized adaptive test (CAT) simulations were used to identify items that best measured patients' levels of pain and function pre- and post-TJR. KOOS-12/HOOS-12 items were selected based on content, coverage of a wide measurement range, high item information, item usage in CAT simulations, scale-level properties (reliability, validity, responsiveness), and qualitative information. RESULTS: KOOS-12 and HOOS-12 each included a pain frequency item and three items measuring pain during increasingly difficult activities (sitting/lying, walking, up/down stairs); function items about standing, rising from sitting, getting in/out of a car, and twisting/pivoting (KOOS-12) or walking on an uneven surface (HOOS-12); and the original 4-item QOL scale. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the benefits of examining patient-reported outcome measures using modern psychometric methods, to create short forms with diverse content that provide domain-specific and summary joint impact scores.

Does total hip replacement impact on postural stability?

BACKGROUND: Total hip replacement (THR) is a procedure which can improve the quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis. However, deficits in static stability and impairment of lower limb efficiency can be observed even several months after the procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate the static balance of the standing position in patients treated by THR. METHODS: The study included 30 THR patients and 30 healthy subjects. The subjects were examined once. A Metitur balance platform and a one-leg standing (OLS) test were used to assess the static balance. The tests on the balance platform were performed in several positions with different foot placement, such as normal standing, eyes open (NS EO) and eyes closed (NS EC) positions, tandem position (TP), the second form of tandem position (2TP) and one-leg standing position (1 L). RESULTS: Significant imbalance in the sagittal plane during normal standing EO and EC positions were found in the THR group. No significant differences in the measured parameters were found during tests in tandem, the second form of tandem and one-leg standing positions in the groups. The mean time of standing on the operated limb in the THR group during the OLS test was significantly shorter than that in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Deficits in static balance may occur in THR patients even a long time after the procedure. The test performed in the NS position is sufficient to assess the balance. The rehabilitation protocols currently used after THR should include postural stability exercises. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial registry: NCT03218267 . 12 July 2017 (retrospectively registered).

Technology-assisted rehabilitation following total knee or hip replacement for people with osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of technology-assisted rehabilitation following total hip/knee replacement (THR/TKR). METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched without language or time restrictions for relevant studies: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro); from inception to November 7th, 2018. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria to select eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effectiveness of technology-based interventions, compared with usual care or no intervention for people undergoing THR/TKR. Two reviewers independently extracted trial details (e.g. patients' profile, intervention, outcomes, attrition and adverse events). Study methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: We identified 21 eligible studies assessing telerehabilitation, game- or web-based therapy. There were 17 studies (N = 2188) in post-TKR rehabilitation and 4 studies (N = 783) in post-THR rehabilitation. Compared to usual care, technology-based intervention was more effective in reducing pain (mean difference (MD): - 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): - 0.48, - 0.02; moderate evidence) and improving function measured with the timed up-and-go test (MD: -7.03; 95% CI: - 11.18, - 2.88) in people undergoing TKR. No between-group differences were observed in rates of hospital readmissions or treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in those studies. CONCLUSION: There is moderate-quality of evidence showed technology-assisted rehabilitation, in particular, telerehabilitation, results in a statistically significant improvement in pain; and low-quality of evidence for the improvement in functional mobility in people undergoing TKR. The effects were however too small to be clinically significant. For THR, there is very limited low-quality evidence shows no significant effects.

Development and evaluation of a tailored e-self-management intervention (dr. Bart app) for knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes (the development of) an eHealth tool (dr. Bart app) to enhance self-management and to optimize non-surgical health care utilization in patients with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA) and presents a study aiming 1) to study the effectiveness of the dr. Bart app on health care use 2) to explore differences in use, usability and the clinical outcomes of the dr. Bart app between the Netherlands and Germany. METHODS: The dr. Bart app is a fully automated eHealth application and is based on the Fogg model for behavioural change, augmented with reminders, rewards and self-monitoring to reinforce app engagement and health behaviour. The dr. Bart app propose goals to a healthier lifestyle based on machine learning techniques fed by data collected in a personal profile and choosing behaviour of the app user. Patients ≥50 years with self-reported knee and/or hip OA will be eligible to participate. Participants will be recruited in the community through advertisements in local newspapers and campaigns on social media. This protocol presents a study with three arms, aiming to include 161 patients in each arm. In the Netherlands, patients are randomly allocated to usual care or dr. Bart app and in Germany all patients receive the dr. Bart app. The primary outcome of the first research question is the number of self-reported consultations in secondary health care. The primary outcome of the second research question (comparison between the Netherlands and Germany) is self-management behaviour assessed by the patient activation measure (PAM-13) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are costs, health-related quality of life, physical functioning and activity, pain, use and usability of the dr. Bart app. Data will be collected through three online questionnaires (at baseline and after 3 and 6 months after inclusion). DISCUSSION: This study will gain insight into the effectiveness of the dr. Bart app in the (conservative) treatment of patients with knee and/or hip OA and differences in the use and usability of the dr. Bart app between the Netherlands and Germany. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (Trial Number NTR6693 / NL6505 ). Registration date: 4 September 2017.

Variation in rehabilitation setting after uncomplicated total knee or hip arthroplasty: a call for evidence-based guidelines.

BACKGROUND: High-level evidence consistently indicates that resource-intensive facility-based rehabilitation does not provide better recovery compared to home programs for uncomplicated knee or hip arthroplasty patients and, therefore, could be reserved for those most impaired. This study aimed to determine if rehabilitation setting aligns with evidence regardless of insurance status. METHODS: Sub-study within a national, prospective study involving 19 Australian high-volume public and private arthroplasty centres. Individuals undergoing primary arthroplasty for osteoarthritis participated. The main outcome was the proportion participating in each rehabilitation setting, obtained via chart review and participant telephone follow-up at 35 and 90 days post-surgery, categorised as 'facility-based' (inpatient rehabilitation and/or ≥ four outpatient-based sessions, including day-hospital) or 'home-based' (domiciliary, monitored or unmonitored home program only). We compared characteristics of the study cohort and rehabilitation setting by insurance status (public or private) using parametric and non-parametric tests, analysing the knee and hip cohorts separately. RESULTS: After excluding ineligible participants (bilateral surgeries, self-funded insurance, participation in a concurrent rehabilitation trial, experience of a major acute complication potentially affecting their rehabilitation pathway), 1334 eligible participants remained. Complete data were available for 1302 (97%) [Knee: n = 610, mean age 68.7 (8.5) yr., 51.1% female; Hip: n = 692, mean age 65.5 (10.4) yr., 48.9% female]; 26% (158/610) of knee and 61% (423/692) of hip participants participated predominantly in home-based programs. A greater proportion of public recipients were obese and had greater pre-operative joint impairment, but participated more commonly in home programs [(Knee: 32.9% (79/240) vs 21.4% (79/370) (P = 0.001); Hip: 71.0% (176/248) vs 55.6% (247/444) (P <  0.001)], less commonly in inpatient rehabilitation [Knee: 7.5% (18/240) vs 56.0% (207/370) P (< 0.001); Hip: 4.4% (11/248) vs 33.1% (147/444) (P <  0.001], and had fewer outpatient treatments [Knee: median (IQR) 6 (3) vs 8 (6) (P < 0.001); Hip: 6 (4) vs 8 (6) (P < 0.001)]. CONCLUSIONS: Facility-based programs remain the norm for most knee and many hip arthroplasty recipients with insurance status being a major determinant of care. Development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines may help resolve the evidence-practice gap, addressing unwarranted practice variation across the insurance sectors.