Non-surgical interventions for arthrofibrosis following knee joint replacement: A systematic review.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Michelle C Hall, Benjamin Smith, Katie J Sheehan, Stefanny Guerra, Bushra Abdunour, Melanie Narayanasamy, Joanne Stocks, Fiona Moffatt, Catherine Sackley
{"title":"Non-surgical interventions for arthrofibrosis following knee joint replacement: A systematic review.","authors":"Michelle C Hall, Benjamin Smith, Katie J Sheehan, Stefanny Guerra, Bushra Abdunour, Melanie Narayanasamy, Joanne Stocks, Fiona Moffatt, Catherine Sackley","doi":"10.1177/02692155251325624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for knee stiffness or arthrofibrosis following knee replacement surgery.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)were searched from database inception to October 2024.Review methodsAll studies of non-surgical interventions (versus any/no comparator) for adults who developed knee stiffness or a diagnosis of arthrofibrosis following knee replacement were included. Selection, quality appraisal and extraction were completed in duplicate. Results were synthesised narratively. The risk of bias was assessed, and GRADE criteria were used to evaluate evidence quality.ResultsSixteen studies were included, comprising two randomised-controlled trials (n = 76), one non-randomised controlled trial (n = 35), seven cohort studies (n = 352) and six case studies (n = seven). Interventions varied widely including exercise, manual therapy, mechanical devices, and education. Improvements in knee range of movement were reported with some demonstrating functional gains >110° of knee flexion, but the evidence was of low quality. Limited reporting of intervention descriptions, patient-relevant outcomes including function and pain, and longer-term follow-up hindered comprehensive evaluation.ConclusionThe review highlights the heterogeneity of interventions, emphasising the need for standardised reporting. While some studies showed promise, the lack of control groups, small sample sizes, and varied follow-up durations limit conclusive findings. There is insufficient evidence to support any specific non-surgical interventions for arthrofibrosis post-arthroplasty. Further research should be a priority.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"2692155251325624"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155251325624","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for knee stiffness or arthrofibrosis following knee replacement surgery.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)were searched from database inception to October 2024.Review methodsAll studies of non-surgical interventions (versus any/no comparator) for adults who developed knee stiffness or a diagnosis of arthrofibrosis following knee replacement were included. Selection, quality appraisal and extraction were completed in duplicate. Results were synthesised narratively. The risk of bias was assessed, and GRADE criteria were used to evaluate evidence quality.ResultsSixteen studies were included, comprising two randomised-controlled trials (n = 76), one non-randomised controlled trial (n = 35), seven cohort studies (n = 352) and six case studies (n = seven). Interventions varied widely including exercise, manual therapy, mechanical devices, and education. Improvements in knee range of movement were reported with some demonstrating functional gains >110° of knee flexion, but the evidence was of low quality. Limited reporting of intervention descriptions, patient-relevant outcomes including function and pain, and longer-term follow-up hindered comprehensive evaluation.ConclusionThe review highlights the heterogeneity of interventions, emphasising the need for standardised reporting. While some studies showed promise, the lack of control groups, small sample sizes, and varied follow-up durations limit conclusive findings. There is insufficient evidence to support any specific non-surgical interventions for arthrofibrosis post-arthroplasty. Further research should be a priority.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信