Intra-Articular Viscosupplementation for Patients with Hip Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

1区 工程技术 Q1 Engineering
Ying-Yang Liao, Tiao Lin, Han-Xiao Zhu, Ming-Min Shi, Shi-Gui Yan
{"title":"Intra-Articular Viscosupplementation for Patients with Hip Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.","authors":"Ying-Yang Liao, Tiao Lin, Han-Xiao Zhu, Ming-Min Shi, Shi-Gui Yan","doi":"10.12659/MSM.916955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to review the efficacy and safety of intra-articular (IA) viscosupplementation (VS) for hip osteoarthritis (OA). MATERIAL AND METHODS We searched Medline, Clinical Trial Register Center, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VS with placebo injection for hip OA. We included suitable studies, assessed the quality of studies, and extracted data on pain reduction, function improvement at different time points, and safety profiles. The comparisons of pain and function outcome were performed by meta-analysis. RESULTS Five high-quality randomized controlled studies trials (RCTs) with 591 patients with hip OA were identified. Although several trials demonstrated a significant decline in pain in VS groups during follow-up compared to baseline, without severe adverse events, the pooled analysis did not show VS was superior to placebo at any time windows [7-14 days: standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.18; 95% CI, -0.47 to 0.10, p=0.21; 28-30 days: 0.02 (-0.15, 0.19), p=0.82; or at final visit: -0.14 (-0.46, 0.18), p=0.38]. Similar results were also observed in the combined data of functional results. CONCLUSIONS IA VS does not reduce pain or improve function significantly better than placebo in a short-term follow-up. The benefits and safety of VS should be further assessed by sufficiently-sized, methodologically sound studies with validated assessment of more clinically relevant end-points.</p>","PeriodicalId":56331,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Applied Mechanics","volume":"1 1","pages":"6436-6445"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6724564/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Applied Mechanics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.916955","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to review the efficacy and safety of intra-articular (IA) viscosupplementation (VS) for hip osteoarthritis (OA). MATERIAL AND METHODS We searched Medline, Clinical Trial Register Center, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VS with placebo injection for hip OA. We included suitable studies, assessed the quality of studies, and extracted data on pain reduction, function improvement at different time points, and safety profiles. The comparisons of pain and function outcome were performed by meta-analysis. RESULTS Five high-quality randomized controlled studies trials (RCTs) with 591 patients with hip OA were identified. Although several trials demonstrated a significant decline in pain in VS groups during follow-up compared to baseline, without severe adverse events, the pooled analysis did not show VS was superior to placebo at any time windows [7-14 days: standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.18; 95% CI, -0.47 to 0.10, p=0.21; 28-30 days: 0.02 (-0.15, 0.19), p=0.82; or at final visit: -0.14 (-0.46, 0.18), p=0.38]. Similar results were also observed in the combined data of functional results. CONCLUSIONS IA VS does not reduce pain or improve function significantly better than placebo in a short-term follow-up. The benefits and safety of VS should be further assessed by sufficiently-sized, methodologically sound studies with validated assessment of more clinically relevant end-points.

髋关节骨性关节炎患者的关节内粘弹性补充剂:一项元分析和系统综述。
背景 本研究旨在回顾关节内粘弹性补充剂 (VS) 治疗髋关节骨关节炎 (OA) 的有效性和安全性。材料与方法 我们检索了 Medline、临床试验注册中心、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 数据库,以查找比较 VS 与安慰剂注射治疗髋关节 OA 的随机对照试验 (RCT)。我们纳入了合适的研究,评估了研究质量,并提取了有关疼痛减轻、不同时间点的功能改善和安全性的数据。通过荟萃分析对疼痛和功能结果进行比较。结果 发现了五项高质量的随机对照研究(RCT),共涉及 591 名髋关节 OA 患者。虽然有几项试验表明,与基线相比,VS 组患者在随访期间疼痛明显减轻,且无严重不良反应,但汇总分析结果显示,VS 在任何时间窗均未优于安慰剂[7-14 天:标准化平均差(SMD):-0.18;95% CI,-0.47 至 0.10,P=0.21;28-30 天:-0.02(-0.15)至 0.10,P=0.21;28-30 天:-0.02(-0.15)至 0.10,P=0.21]:0.02(-0.15,0.19),P=0.82;或在最后一次就诊时:-0.14 (-0.46, 0.18), p=0.38].在功能结果的综合数据中也观察到了类似的结果。结论 在短期随访中,IA VS 减轻疼痛或改善功能的效果并不明显优于安慰剂。VS的益处和安全性应通过规模足够大、方法可靠的研究进行进一步评估,并对更多临床相关终点进行有效评估。
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
Advances in Applied Mechanics
Advances in Applied Mechanics 工程技术-工程:机械
CiteScore
23.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊介绍: Advances in Applied Mechanics draws together recent significant advances in all areas of applied mechanics. Published since 1948, it aims to provide the highest quality, authoritative review articles on topics in the mechanical sciences. It is of primary interest to scientists and engineers working in the various branches of mechanics and is also valuable to those who apply the results of investigations in mechanics to areas such as aerospace, chemical, civil, environmental, mechanical and nuclear engineering.
×
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