The effects of various physical non-operative modalities on the pain in osteoarthritis of the knee

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of various non-operative modalities of treatment (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS); neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES); insoles and bracing) on the pain of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify the therapeutic options which are commonly adopted for the management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. The outcome measurement tools used in the different studies were the visual analogue scale and The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain index: all pain scores were converted to a 100-point scale. A total of 30 studies met our inclusion criteria: 13 on insoles, seven on TENS, six on NMES, and four on bracing. The standardised mean difference (SMD) in pain after treatment with TENS was 1.796, which represented a significant reduction in pain. The significant overall effect estimate for NMES on pain was similar to that of TENS, with a SMD of 1.924. The overall effect estimate of insoles on pain was a SMD of 0.992. The overall effect of bracing showed a significant reduction in pain of 1.34. Overall, all four non-operative modalities of treatment were found to have a significant effect on the reduction of pain in OA of the knee. This study shows that non-operative physical modalities of treatment are of benefit when treating OA of the knee. However, much of the literature reviewed evaluates studies with follow-up of less than six months: future work should aim to evaluate patients with longer follow-up.

A placebo-controlled randomised trial to assess the effect of TGF-ß1-expressing chondrocytes in patients with arthritis of the knee

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of injecting genetically engineered chondrocytes expressing transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1) into the knees of patients with osteoarthritis. We assessed the resultant function, pain and quality of life.

A total of 54 patients (20 men, 34 women) who had a mean age of 58 years (50 to 66) were blinded and randomised (1:1) to receive a single injection of the active treatment or a placebo. We assessed post-treatment function, pain severity, physical function, quality of life and the incidence of treatment-associated adverse events. Patients were followed at four, 12 and 24 weeks after injection.

At final follow-up the treatment group had a significantly greater improvement in the mean International Knee Documentation Committee score than the placebo group (16 points; -18 to 49, vs 8 points; -4 to 37, respectively; p = 0.03). The treatment group also had a significantly improved mean visual analogue score at final follow-up (-25; -85 to 34, vs -11 points; -51 to 25, respectively; p = 0.032). Both cohorts showed an improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, but these differences were not statistically significant. One patient had an anaphylactic reaction to the preservation medium, but recovered within 24 hours. All other adverse events were localised and resolved without further action.

This technique may result in improved clinical outcomes, with the aim of slowing the degenerative process, leading to improvements in pain and function. However, imaging and direct observational studies are needed to verify cartilage regeneration. Nevertheless, this study provided a sufficient basis to proceed to further clinical testing.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:924–32.