Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Osteoarthritis is the single most common cause of pain and disability in older adults. This review addresses the question of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions following total knee replacement (TKR).
Methods
A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, DARE, HTA and NHS EED databases were searched from inception to 02 May 2020. Search terms related to the clinical and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions were used. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified and key data were extracted. Random effect meta-analysis was conducted for pain, physical function and range of motion (ROM).
Results
In total, 1467 studies were identified. Of these, 26 studies were included; methodological quality of most studies was adequate. Physiotherapy interventions were more effective than control for function, SMD − 0.166 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) − 0.420 to 0.088.] and ROM, SMD − 0.219 [95% CI − 0.465 to 0.028] for a follow-up of 2 or 3 months. Patients in the intervention group showed improvement in pain at 12–13 weeks, SMD − 0.175 [95% CI − 0.416 to 0.067]. No evidence on the pooled estimate of cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions was found.
Conclusions
This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis that has examined the clinical and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions following TKR. The findings of this review suggest that physiotherapy interventions were effective for improving physical function, ROM and pain in a short-term follow-up following TKR. Insufficient evidence exists to establish the benefit of physiotherapy in the long term for patient with TKR. Further study should examine the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,General Medicine,Surgery,Surgery
Reference47 articles.
1. Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, Lozano R, Michaud C, Ezzati M, Shibuya K, Salomon JA, Abdalla S, Aboyans V, Abraham J (2012) Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet 380(9859):2163–2196
2. Cross M, Smith E, Hoy D, Nolte S, Ackerman I, Fransen M, Bridgett L, Williams S, Guillemin F, Hill CL, Laslett LL (2014) The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 73(7):1323–1330
3. Turkiewicz A, Petersson IF, Björk J, Hawker G, Dahlberg LE, Lohmander LS, Englund M (2014) Current and future impact of osteoarthritis on health care: a population-based study with projections to year 2032. OsteoarthrCartil 22(11):1826–1832
4. Pereira D, Peleteiro B, Araujo J, Branco J, Santos RA, Ramos E (2011) The effect of osteoarthritis definition on prevalence and incidence estimates: a systematic review. OsteoarthrCartil 19(11):1270–1285
5. Safiri S, Kolahi AA, Hoy D, Smith E, Bettampadi D, Mansournia MA, Almasi-Hashiani A, Ashrafi-Asgarabad A, Moradi-Lakeh M, Qorbani M, Collins G (2019) Global, regional and national burden of rheumatoid arthritis 1990–2017: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2017. Ann Rheum Dis 78(11):1463–1471
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献