Comparison of three different therapeutic interventions in the management of knee osteoarthritis: Randomized controlled parallel group pilot trial

IF 2.9

Osteoarthritis and cartilage open Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-10-17 DOI:10.1016/j.ocarto.2025.100697

Vilma Dudonienė , Daumantas Bitinas , Laura Žlibinaitė

{"title":"Comparison of three different therapeutic interventions in the management of knee osteoarthritis: Randomized controlled parallel group pilot trial","authors":"Vilma Dudonienė , Daumantas Bitinas , Laura Žlibinaitė","doi":"10.1016/j.ocarto.2025.100697","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different physical interventions on pain intensity, knee function, and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This pilot trial involved 63 patients (45–55 yrs) in a rehabilitation center. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: therapeutic exercise alone (TE, n = 21), TE and cryotherapy (TE-Cr, n = 21), and TE and joint mobilization (TE-JM, n = 21). The primary outcome was pain intensity, secondary outcomes included knee joint function (WOMAC), muscle strength, knee joint range of motion (ROM), and quality of life (SF-36). Data were collected at baseline and after 18 days of inpatient rehabilitation.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There were no significant between-group differences in the primary outcome at baseline. After 18 days, all intervention groups showed significant improvements (p < 0.05). The TE-JM group reported lower (p < 0.05) pain levels (3.24 ± 1.04) compared to the TE-only (4.76 ± 0.77) and TE-Cr (4.86 ± 0.57) groups. The TE-Cr group had a lower (p < 0.05) SF-36 total score (52.81 ± 10.50) than the TE (62.00 ± 9.74) and TE-JM (66.62 ± 2.87) groups. No significant between-group differences were observed in ROM or muscle strength. The WOMAC total score was lower (p < 0.05) in the TE-JM group (27.3 ± 13.9) compared to the TE-Cr group (40.1 ± 10.7).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Although all three interventions had beneficial short-term effects, leading to reductions in knee pain and improvements in physical function and quality of life, but no single intervention demonstrated superior effectiveness across all assessed outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Trial registration</h3><div><span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, <span><span>http://www.clinicaltrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, NCT05636059.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74377,"journal":{"name":"Osteoarthritis and cartilage open","volume":"7 4","pages":"Article 100697"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Osteoarthritis and cartilage open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665913125001335","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different physical interventions on pain intensity, knee function, and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

This pilot trial involved 63 patients (45–55 yrs) in a rehabilitation center. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: therapeutic exercise alone (TE, n = 21), TE and cryotherapy (TE-Cr, n = 21), and TE and joint mobilization (TE-JM, n = 21). The primary outcome was pain intensity, secondary outcomes included knee joint function (WOMAC), muscle strength, knee joint range of motion (ROM), and quality of life (SF-36). Data were collected at baseline and after 18 days of inpatient rehabilitation.

Results

There were no significant between-group differences in the primary outcome at baseline. After 18 days, all intervention groups showed significant improvements (p < 0.05). The TE-JM group reported lower (p < 0.05) pain levels (3.24 ± 1.04) compared to the TE-only (4.76 ± 0.77) and TE-Cr (4.86 ± 0.57) groups. The TE-Cr group had a lower (p < 0.05) SF-36 total score (52.81 ± 10.50) than the TE (62.00 ± 9.74) and TE-JM (66.62 ± 2.87) groups. No significant between-group differences were observed in ROM or muscle strength. The WOMAC total score was lower (p < 0.05) in the TE-JM group (27.3 ± 13.9) compared to the TE-Cr group (40.1 ± 10.7).

Conclusion

Although all three interventions had beneficial short-term effects, leading to reductions in knee pain and improvements in physical function and quality of life, but no single intervention demonstrated superior effectiveness across all assessed outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05636059.

查看原文本刊更多论文

膝关节骨性关节炎三种不同治疗干预措施的比较：随机对照平行组先导试验

目的比较不同物理干预对膝关节骨性关节炎（OA）患者疼痛强度、膝关节功能和生活质量的影响。方法本试验纳入康复中心63例患者（45-55岁）。患者随机分为三组：单纯运动治疗组（TE, n = 21）、TE联合冷冻治疗组（TE- cr, n = 21）、TE联合关节活动组（TE- jm, n = 21）。主要终点是疼痛强度，次要终点包括膝关节功能（WOMAC）、肌肉力量、膝关节活动范围（ROM）和生活质量（SF-36）。在基线和住院康复18天后收集数据。结果两组间基线时主要转归无显著差异。18 d后，各干预组均有显著改善（p < 0.05）。TE-JM组疼痛水平（3.24±1.04）低于单纯te组（4.76±0.77）和TE-Cr组（4.86±0.57）（p < 0.05）。TE- cr组SF-36总分（52.81±10.50）低于TE组（62.00±9.74）和TE- jm组（66.62±2.87）（p < 0.05）。在ROM和肌力方面，组间无显著差异。TE-JM组WOMAC总分（27.3±13.9）低于TE-Cr组（40.1±10.7），差异有统计学意义（p < 0.05）。结论：虽然这三种干预措施都有短期效果，可以减少膝关节疼痛，改善身体功能和生活质量，但没有一种干预措施在所有评估结果中都显示出优越的效果。临床试验注册：clinicaltrials.gov, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05636059。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Osteoarthritis and cartilage open Orthopedics, Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量