Mathew Nicholls, Ajay Manjoo, Peter Shaw, Faizan Niazi, Jeffrey Rosen
{"title":"美国市售透明质酸产品治疗骨关节炎膝关节疼痛的流变学特性。","authors":"Mathew Nicholls, Ajay Manjoo, Peter Shaw, Faizan Niazi, Jeffrey Rosen","doi":"10.1177/1179544117751622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The inconsistent results within the current literature regarding the efficacy of intra-articular-hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) have been suggested to be due to intrinsic differences between individual HA products. The purpose of this investigation is to define the rheological differences between currently available HA products in the United States at the time of this study for the treatment of knee OA, which will help elaborate on the appropriateness of classifying HA products as a class opposed to as individual agents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The rheological parameters for Euflexxa, Orthovisc, Supartz, Monovisc, Synvisc, Synvisc-One, Gel-One, and Hyalgan were obtained with a TA AR 2000 EX Rheometer with a cone-plate geometry (40-mm plate diameter and a 2° cone angle) at room temperature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The bulk rheological parameters of the different products suggest molecular structures traversing the range of dilute solution (Hyalgan, Supartz), semidilute solution (Euflexxa, Orthovisc), entangled solutions (Monovisc, Synvisc, Synvisc-One), and even gel-like (Gel-One) behavior.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Due to the differences in rheological properties between IA-HA products, the universal assessment of these products as a class may not be appropriate. Instead, it may be more appropriate to assess each product individually. Future research should aim to link these differences in rheological properties to the differences in clinical efficacy seen across these IA-HA products.</p>","PeriodicalId":10443,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine Insights. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1179544117751622","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rheological Properties of Commercially Available Hyaluronic Acid Products in the United States for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis Knee Pain.\",\"authors\":\"Mathew Nicholls, Ajay Manjoo, Peter Shaw, Faizan Niazi, Jeffrey Rosen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1179544117751622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The inconsistent results within the current literature regarding the efficacy of intra-articular-hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) have been suggested to be due to intrinsic differences between individual HA products. The purpose of this investigation is to define the rheological differences between currently available HA products in the United States at the time of this study for the treatment of knee OA, which will help elaborate on the appropriateness of classifying HA products as a class opposed to as individual agents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The rheological parameters for Euflexxa, Orthovisc, Supartz, Monovisc, Synvisc, Synvisc-One, Gel-One, and Hyalgan were obtained with a TA AR 2000 EX Rheometer with a cone-plate geometry (40-mm plate diameter and a 2° cone angle) at room temperature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The bulk rheological parameters of the different products suggest molecular structures traversing the range of dilute solution (Hyalgan, Supartz), semidilute solution (Euflexxa, Orthovisc), entangled solutions (Monovisc, Synvisc, Synvisc-One), and even gel-like (Gel-One) behavior.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Due to the differences in rheological properties between IA-HA products, the universal assessment of these products as a class may not be appropriate. Instead, it may be more appropriate to assess each product individually. Future research should aim to link these differences in rheological properties to the differences in clinical efficacy seen across these IA-HA products.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Medicine Insights. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1179544117751622\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Medicine Insights. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1179544117751622\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine Insights. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1179544117751622","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Rheological Properties of Commercially Available Hyaluronic Acid Products in the United States for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis Knee Pain.
Objective: The inconsistent results within the current literature regarding the efficacy of intra-articular-hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) have been suggested to be due to intrinsic differences between individual HA products. The purpose of this investigation is to define the rheological differences between currently available HA products in the United States at the time of this study for the treatment of knee OA, which will help elaborate on the appropriateness of classifying HA products as a class opposed to as individual agents.
Methods: The rheological parameters for Euflexxa, Orthovisc, Supartz, Monovisc, Synvisc, Synvisc-One, Gel-One, and Hyalgan were obtained with a TA AR 2000 EX Rheometer with a cone-plate geometry (40-mm plate diameter and a 2° cone angle) at room temperature.
Results: The bulk rheological parameters of the different products suggest molecular structures traversing the range of dilute solution (Hyalgan, Supartz), semidilute solution (Euflexxa, Orthovisc), entangled solutions (Monovisc, Synvisc, Synvisc-One), and even gel-like (Gel-One) behavior.
Conclusions: Due to the differences in rheological properties between IA-HA products, the universal assessment of these products as a class may not be appropriate. Instead, it may be more appropriate to assess each product individually. Future research should aim to link these differences in rheological properties to the differences in clinical efficacy seen across these IA-HA products.