Superiority of laterally elevated wedged insoles to neutrally wedged insoles in medial knee osteoarthritis symptom relief
Aim Knee osteoarthritis (OA), is the most common degenerative joint disease. Several non‐pharmacological interventions have been used for this purpose such as insoles. There are contradictory data about the superiority and effectiveness of laterally wedged compared with neutrally wedged insoles. Thi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of rheumatic diseases 2014-01, Vol.17 (1), p.84-88 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Aim
Knee osteoarthritis (OA), is the most common degenerative joint disease. Several non‐pharmacological interventions have been used for this purpose such as insoles. There are contradictory data about the superiority and effectiveness of laterally wedged compared with neutrally wedged insoles. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of laterally and neutrally wedged insoles in management of knee OA.
Methods
In this double‐blind, parallel treatment trial, 118 patients with knee OA according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria were enrolled and were followed for 2 months. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. Fifty‐seven of them were treated with 5° laterally elevated wedged insoles (group A) and 61 patients were treated with neutrally wedged insoles (group B). Edinburg Knee Functional Scale (EKFS) was used to evaluate knee function before and after interventions. At the end of 2 months, severity of knee pain during the previous 2 days, numbers of non‐steroid anti inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) used for pain relief within the last 2 weeks and EKFS were assessed.
Results
Severity of knee pain decreased in both groups after intervention. The mean difference in groups A (laterally wedged insole) and B (neutrally wedged insole) were 29.3 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 25.12, 33.55) and 6.25 (95% CI: 3.09, 9.4), respectively (P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1756-1841 1756-185X |
DOI: | 10.1111/1756-185X.12036 |