1. |
- Felson, David T, et al.
(författare)
-
Knee buckling: prevalence, risk factors, and associated limitations in function
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Annals of Internal Medicine. - 0003-4819. ; 147:8, s. 534-540
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Knee buckling is common in persons with advanced knee osteoarthritis and after orthopedic procedures. Its prevalence in the community is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of knee buckling in the community, its associated risk factors, and its relation to functional limitation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, population-based study. SETTING: The Framingham Osteoarthritis Study. PARTICIPANTS: 2351 men and women age 36 to 94 years (median, 63.5 years). MEASUREMENTS: Participants were asked whether they had experienced knee buckling or "giving way" and whether it led to falling. They were also asked about knee pain and limitations in function by using the Short Form-12 and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, had isometric tests of quadriceps strength, and underwent weight-bearing radiography and magnetic resonance imaging of the knee. Radiographs were scored for osteoarthritis by using the Kellgren-Lawrence scale, and magnetic resonance images were read for anterior cruciate ligament tears. The relationship of buckling to functional limitation was examined by using logistic regression that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and knee pain severity. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-eight participants (11.8%) experienced at least 1 episode of knee buckling within the past 3 months; of these persons, 217 (78.1%) experienced more than 1 episode and 35 (12.6%) fell during an episode. Buckling was independently associated with the presence of knee pain and with quadriceps weakness. Over half of those with buckling had no osteoarthritis on radiography. Persons with knee buckling had worse physical function than those without buckling, even after adjustment for severity of knee pain and weakness. For example, 46.9% of participants with buckling and 21.7% of those without buckling reported limitations in their work (adjusted odds ratio, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.5 to 2.7]). LIMITATION: Causal inferences are limited because of the study's cross-sectional design. CONCLUSION: In adults, knee buckling is common and is associated with functional loss.
|
|
2. |
- Sihvonen, Raine, et al.
(författare)
-
Mechanical symptoms and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in patients with degenerative meniscus tear : A secondary analysis of a randomized trial
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Annals of Internal Medicine. - 0003-4819. ; 164:7, s. 449-455
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Recent evidence shows that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) offers no benefit over conservative treatment of patients with a degenerative meniscus tear. However, patients who report mechanical symptoms (sensations of knee catching or locking) may benefit from APM. Objective: To assess whether APM improves mechanical symptoms better than sham surgery. Design: Randomized, patient- and outcome assessor-blinded, sham surgery-controlled, multicenter trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00549172) Setting: 5 orthopedic clinics in Finland. Patients: Adults (aged 35 to 65 years) with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis. Intervention: APM or sham surgery. Measurements: Patients' self-report of mechanical symptoms before surgery and at 2, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: 70 patients were randomly assigned to APM, and 76 were assigned to sham surgery. Thirty-two patients (46%) in the APM group and 37 (49%) in the sham surgery group reported catching or locking before surgery; the corresponding numbers at any follow-up were 34 (49%) and 33 (43%), with a risk difference of 0.03 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.12). In the subgroup of 69 patients with preoperative catching or locking, the risk difference was 0.07 (CI, -0.08 to 0.22). Limitation: Analyses were post hoc, and the results are only generalizable to knee catching and occasional locking because few patients reported other types of mechanical symptoms. Conclusion: Resection of a torn meniscus has no added benefit over sham surgery to relieve knee catching or occasional locking. These findings question whether mechanical symptoms are caused by a degenerative meniscus tear and prompt caution in using patients' self-report of these symptoms as an indication for APM.
|
|