Abstract
AbstractObjectivePain is the principal symptom in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Current non-operative treatment options have only moderate effects and often patients experience persistent pain or side-effects. Novel advances in the field of cryoneurolysis applies low temperatures to disrupt nerve signaling at the painful area, providing pain relief. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate if cryoneurolysis is superior to sham at decreasing pain intensity 2 weeks after the intervention in patients with knee OA. Secondary aims are to explore effects on pain, quality of life and functional performance over 24 months.MethodsThis two-arm, parallel-group RCT, approved by the Regional Ethics Committee, will randomly allocate patients (n = 94) to a cryoneurolysis intervention group + standardized education and exercise (CRYO) or a sham group + standardized education and exercise (SHAM) (1:1 ratio). Both groups will be assessed at baseline, 2 weeks post intervention, post education and exercise and at 6, 12 and 24 months after cryoneurolysis. The primary outcome is the NRS knee pain intensity score assessed 2 weeks post the intervention. Secondary outcome measures include functional performance (chair-stand test, 40 m walk, stair test and maximum voluntary contraction of the knee), patient reported outcomes (quality of life (EQ5D), Knee and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOS), among others), use of analgesics, and adverse events over 24 months.Impact statementCryoneurolysis could potentially provide an effective, safe and non-pharmacological therapeutic option to treat pain in OA patients. The potential benefits include increased functional capacity and quality of life as a result of significant pain relief and improved benefits of physical exercise.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov,NCT03774121, registered 3 March 2018,http://www.clinicaltrials.gov
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Rheumatology
Reference52 articles.
1. O’Brien T, Breivik H. The impact of chronic pain—European patients’ perspective over 12 months; 2012. p. 23–9.
2. Hootman JM, Helmick CG. Projections of US prevalence of arthritis and associated activity limitations. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54(1):226–9.
3. Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, Lozano R, Michaud C, Ezzati M, et al. 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. 2012;380(9859):2163–96.
4. March LM, Bachmeier CJ. Economics of osteoarthritis: a global perspective. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol. 1997;11(4):817–34.
5. Heidari B. Knee osteoarthritis prevalence, risk factors, pathogenesis and features: part I. Caspian J Intern Med. 2011;2(2):205–12.
Cited by
15 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