ONE-YEAR RESULTS OF BRACING FOR PATELLO-FEMORAL OSTEOARTHRITIS. PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED STUDY

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_MERINO_ONEYEAR_RESULTS_OF_BRACING_FOR_PATELLOFEMORAL_OSTEOARTHRITIS_PROSPECTIVE_2021.PDF (705.87 KB)
Citações na Scopus
1
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2021
DOI
SciELO
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ATHA COMUNICACAO & EDITORA
Autores
Citação
ACTA ORTOPEDICA BRASILEIRA, v.29, n.3, p.127-131, 2021
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Objective: To compare the long-term effects of a brace designed to stabilize the patellofemoral (PF) joint in comparison to a standard neoprene sleeve for the knee with patellar hole in patients with patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA). Methods: 38 patients with PFOA and comorbidities received either a functional PF brace (Study Group, SG) or a neoprene sleeve for the knee (Control Group, CG). Both groups received clinical treatment to OA and comorbidities according to a program from the institution. Patients were evaluated with Western Ontario and MacMaster (WOMAC) and Lequesne questionnaires, 30-second chair stand test (30CST), Timed Up and Go (TUG), anthropometric measures and self-reported physical activity in minutes/week at inclusion, one, three and twelve months after placing the brace. X-Rays were taken to measure the angles. Results: At one year there was more abandonment in the CG without differences in weight and body mass index between groups during the study. The SG maintained improvements in Lequesne and WOMAC total and subsets during the year, whereas the CG returned to baseline values for pain, function and total (p < 0.01). TUG and 30CST results were always better in the study group without any clinically important improvement in both groups. Conclusion: Long-term use of functional brace added to self-management program improves pain and function in patients with PFOA.
Palavras-chave
Osteoarthritis, Orthotic Devices, Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/41513
Referências
  1. ALTMAN R, 1986, ARTHRITIS RHEUM, V29, P1039, DOI 10.1002/art.1780290816
  2. Callaghan M, 2013, OSTEOARTHR CARTILAGE, V21, pS23, DOI 10.1016/j.joca.2013.02.070
  3. Crossley KM, 2015, OSTEOARTHR CARTILAGE, V23, P1457, DOI 10.1016/j.joca.2015.04.024
  4. de Campos GC, 2013, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, V471, P613, DOI 10.1007/s11999-012-2659-y
  5. Duncan RC, 2006, RHEUMATOLOGY, V45, P757, DOI 10.1093/rheumatology/kei270
  6. Fernandes MI., 2003, THESIS U FEDERAL SAO
  7. Gill S, 2008, PHYSIOTHER RES INT, V13, P141, DOI 10.1002/pri.411
  8. Hinman RS, 2007, RHEUMATOLOGY, V46, P1057, DOI 10.1093/rheumatology/kem114
  9. Hinman RS, 2003, BRIT MED J, V327, P135, DOI 10.1136/bmj.327.7407.135
  10. Hunter DJ, 2011, OSTEOARTHR CARTILAGE, V19, P792, DOI 10.1016/j.joca.2010.12.010
  11. Hunter DJ, 2014, NAT REV RHEUMATOL, V10, P437, DOI 10.1038/nrrheum.2014.44
  12. KELLGREN JH, 1957, ANN RHEUM DIS, V16, P485, DOI 10.1136/ard.16.4.485
  13. Lawrence RC, 1998, ARTHRITIS RHEUM-US, V41, P778, DOI 10.1002/1529-0131(199805)41:5<778::AID-ART4>3.0.CO;2-V
  14. Liao TC, 2019, J ORTHOP RES, V37, P2593, DOI 10.1002/jor.24433
  15. Marx Felipe C., 2006, Rev. Bras. Reumatol., V46, P253, DOI 10.1590/S0482-50042006000400004
  16. McWalter EJ, 2011, OSTEOARTHR CARTILAGE, V19, P801, DOI 10.1016/j.joca.2011.03.003
  17. Mills K, 2014, BEST PRACT RES CL RH, V28, P73, DOI 10.1016/j.berh.2014.01.006
  18. PODSIADLO D, 1991, J AM GERIATR SOC, V39, P142, DOI 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x
  19. Teng HL, 2015, CLIN BIOMECH, V30, P383, DOI 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.02.008
  20. Yamamoto GJ, 2019, ACTA ORTOP BRAS, V27, P85, DOI 10.1590/1413-785220192702208131

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MOT
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/IOT
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/41