膝关节支具在非手术软组织和退行性膝关节损伤中的有效性:系统综述。

IF 5
Marc Daniel Bouchard, Justin Gilbert, Michelle Cruickshank, Colin Kruse, Prushoth Vivekanantha, James Yan, Vickas Khanna
{"title":"膝关节支具在非手术软组织和退行性膝关节损伤中的有效性:系统综述。","authors":"Marc Daniel Bouchard, Justin Gilbert, Michelle Cruickshank, Colin Kruse, Prushoth Vivekanantha, James Yan, Vickas Khanna","doi":"10.1002/ksa.70080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Soft tissue and degenerative knee injuries, including anterior/posterior cruciate ligament (ACL/PCL) injuries, medial knee osteoarthritis (MKOA), and patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA), are common causes of pain and functional decline. Knee bracing is often used as part of non-operative treatment, but its clinical effectiveness remains uncertain. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the role of bracing in improving pain, function, and preventing surgical conversion in adults with non-operatively managed knee injuries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Emcare were searched from inception to March 2025. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes of knee bracing in adults with soft tissue or degenerative knee injuries treated non-operatively. Studies focused on biomechanics, prophylaxis, surgery, or paediatric populations were excluded. Data were synthesised narratively with weighted summary statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen studies (706 patients) were included: six on ACL injuries, three PCL, three MKOA, and five PFOA. MKOA studies showed pooled improvements of +14.6 in KOOS Pain and -1.9 in VAS (SDs 1.0 and 0.5). ACL studies reported a pooled Lysholm gain of +11.8 (SD = 4.3), while PCL outcomes showed large single-study improvements (KOOS Pain +31.0, IKDC + 30.0). WOMAC scores improved in MKOA (-13.7) but declined in PFOA (-6.4). Failure (surgical conversion) was reported in 13 studies, with the highest rates in PCL (16.4%) and ACL (10.6%), and the lowest in MKOA (0%) and PFOA (4.0%). Complications were infrequently reported; skin irritation was the most common adverse event.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Knee bracing demonstrated the most consistent pain and functional improvements in degenerative and PCL injuries. In contrast, outcomes in ACL injuries were more variable and associated with higher failure rates, underscoring the need for injury-specific bracing strategies. These findings emphasise the importance of patient selection, brace design, and early intervention, and support the need for higher-quality studies to guide non-operative management strategies.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":520702,"journal":{"name":"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effectiveness of knee bracing in non-operative soft tissue and degenerative knee injuries: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Marc Daniel Bouchard, Justin Gilbert, Michelle Cruickshank, Colin Kruse, Prushoth Vivekanantha, James Yan, Vickas Khanna\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ksa.70080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Soft tissue and degenerative knee injuries, including anterior/posterior cruciate ligament (ACL/PCL) injuries, medial knee osteoarthritis (MKOA), and patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA), are common causes of pain and functional decline. Knee bracing is often used as part of non-operative treatment, but its clinical effectiveness remains uncertain. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the role of bracing in improving pain, function, and preventing surgical conversion in adults with non-operatively managed knee injuries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Emcare were searched from inception to March 2025. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes of knee bracing in adults with soft tissue or degenerative knee injuries treated non-operatively. Studies focused on biomechanics, prophylaxis, surgery, or paediatric populations were excluded. Data were synthesised narratively with weighted summary statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen studies (706 patients) were included: six on ACL injuries, three PCL, three MKOA, and five PFOA. MKOA studies showed pooled improvements of +14.6 in KOOS Pain and -1.9 in VAS (SDs 1.0 and 0.5). ACL studies reported a pooled Lysholm gain of +11.8 (SD = 4.3), while PCL outcomes showed large single-study improvements (KOOS Pain +31.0, IKDC + 30.0). WOMAC scores improved in MKOA (-13.7) but declined in PFOA (-6.4). Failure (surgical conversion) was reported in 13 studies, with the highest rates in PCL (16.4%) and ACL (10.6%), and the lowest in MKOA (0%) and PFOA (4.0%). Complications were infrequently reported; skin irritation was the most common adverse event.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Knee bracing demonstrated the most consistent pain and functional improvements in degenerative and PCL injuries. In contrast, outcomes in ACL injuries were more variable and associated with higher failure rates, underscoring the need for injury-specific bracing strategies. These findings emphasise the importance of patient selection, brace design, and early intervention, and support the need for higher-quality studies to guide non-operative management strategies.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IV.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520702,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.70080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.70080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:软组织和退行性膝关节损伤,包括前/后交叉韧带(ACL/PCL)损伤,膝关节内侧骨关节炎(MKOA)和髌股骨关节炎(PFOA),是疼痛和功能下降的常见原因。膝关节支具常作为非手术治疗的一部分,但其临床效果尚不确定。本系统综述旨在评估支具在改善成人非手术处理膝关节损伤的疼痛、功能和预防手术转化中的作用。方法:按照PRISMA指南进行系统评价。Embase、Ovid MEDLINE和Ovid Emcare从创建到2025年3月被检索。如果研究报告了非手术治疗的成人软组织或退行性膝关节损伤的膝关节支具的临床结果,则纳入研究。研究集中在生物力学、预防、外科或儿科人群被排除在外。数据采用加权汇总统计进行叙述性综合。结果:纳入17项研究(706例患者):6例ACL损伤,3例PCL, 3例MKOA, 5例PFOA。MKOA研究显示kos疼痛改善14.6,VAS改善-1.9 (SDs 1.0和0.5)。ACL研究报告综合Lysholm增益为+11.8 (SD = 4.3),而PCL结果显示单项研究有较大改善(oos Pain +31.0, IKDC + 30.0)。WOMAC评分在MKOA(-13.7)中有所改善,但在PFOA(-6.4)中有所下降。13项研究报告了手术转换失败,其中PCL(16.4%)和ACL(10.6%)的失败率最高,MKOA(0%)和PFOA(4.0%)的失败率最低。并发症很少报道;皮肤刺激是最常见的不良反应。结论:膝关节支具在退行性损伤和PCL损伤中表现出最一致的疼痛和功能改善。相比之下,前交叉韧带损伤的结果变化更大,与更高的失败率相关,强调了针对特定损伤的支具策略的必要性。这些发现强调了患者选择、支具设计和早期干预的重要性,并支持需要更高质量的研究来指导非手术治疗策略。证据等级:四级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The effectiveness of knee bracing in non-operative soft tissue and degenerative knee injuries: A systematic review.

Purpose: Soft tissue and degenerative knee injuries, including anterior/posterior cruciate ligament (ACL/PCL) injuries, medial knee osteoarthritis (MKOA), and patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA), are common causes of pain and functional decline. Knee bracing is often used as part of non-operative treatment, but its clinical effectiveness remains uncertain. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the role of bracing in improving pain, function, and preventing surgical conversion in adults with non-operatively managed knee injuries.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Emcare were searched from inception to March 2025. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes of knee bracing in adults with soft tissue or degenerative knee injuries treated non-operatively. Studies focused on biomechanics, prophylaxis, surgery, or paediatric populations were excluded. Data were synthesised narratively with weighted summary statistics.

Results: Seventeen studies (706 patients) were included: six on ACL injuries, three PCL, three MKOA, and five PFOA. MKOA studies showed pooled improvements of +14.6 in KOOS Pain and -1.9 in VAS (SDs 1.0 and 0.5). ACL studies reported a pooled Lysholm gain of +11.8 (SD = 4.3), while PCL outcomes showed large single-study improvements (KOOS Pain +31.0, IKDC + 30.0). WOMAC scores improved in MKOA (-13.7) but declined in PFOA (-6.4). Failure (surgical conversion) was reported in 13 studies, with the highest rates in PCL (16.4%) and ACL (10.6%), and the lowest in MKOA (0%) and PFOA (4.0%). Complications were infrequently reported; skin irritation was the most common adverse event.

Conclusion: Knee bracing demonstrated the most consistent pain and functional improvements in degenerative and PCL injuries. In contrast, outcomes in ACL injuries were more variable and associated with higher failure rates, underscoring the need for injury-specific bracing strategies. These findings emphasise the importance of patient selection, brace design, and early intervention, and support the need for higher-quality studies to guide non-operative management strategies.

Level of evidence: Level IV.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信