Comparison of simultaneous bilateral versus unilateral total knee replacement on pain levels and functional recovery.
Bilateral
Function
Pain
Total knee arthroplasty
Unilateral
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Apr 2020
15 Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
23
09
2019
accepted:
03
04
2020
entrez:
16
4
2020
pubmed:
16
4
2020
medline:
8
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Total knee replacement is a common operative procedure to improve pain, function, and quality of life in patients with end stage knee osteoarthritis. The current study aimed to compare simultaneous bilateral versus unilateral total knee replacement on pain intensity and recovery of function. A total of 80 patients (bilateral 50, unilateral 30) aged 63.28 (9.4) years undergone total knee replacement participated in the current study. The participants were admitted for 5-7 days in the hospital. Participants in both the group received similar inpatient and outpatient physiotherapy sessions. Pain intensity and function capacity were assessed at baseline, day 7, and day 30 postoperatively using visual analogue scale and lower extremity functional scale, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. Both groups showed a significant reduction of pain intensity (Day 0, mean 8.9, SD 1.0; Day 30, mean 2.2, SD 1.3 in bilateral total knee replacement; Day 0, mean 8.8, SD 1.1; Day 30, mean 2.0, SD 1.5 in unilateral total knee replacement; p < 0.001) and improvement in the functional capacity (Day 0, mean 16.2, SD 10.1; Day 30, mean 55.6, SD 14.6 in bilateral total knee replacement; Day 0, mean 19.1, SD 9.1; Day 30, mean 56.7, SD 15.8 in unilateral total knee replacement; p < 0.001) following total knee replacement at 30 days post-operatively. However, there was a non-significant difference noted between bilateral versus unilateral total knee replacement on the reduction of pain intensity (mean changes, 6.9 versus 6.8) and improvement in the functional capacity (mean changes, 39.4 versus 37.6) at 30 days post-operatively (p > 0.05). Simultaneous bilateral total knee replacement was associated with a similar reduction of pain intensity and recovery of function compared to unilateral total knee replacement, suggesting the use of simultaneous bilateral total knee replacement in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis since its costs and rehabilitation process could be reduced compared to staged bilateral total knee replacement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Total knee replacement is a common operative procedure to improve pain, function, and quality of life in patients with end stage knee osteoarthritis. The current study aimed to compare simultaneous bilateral versus unilateral total knee replacement on pain intensity and recovery of function.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 80 patients (bilateral 50, unilateral 30) aged 63.28 (9.4) years undergone total knee replacement participated in the current study. The participants were admitted for 5-7 days in the hospital. Participants in both the group received similar inpatient and outpatient physiotherapy sessions. Pain intensity and function capacity were assessed at baseline, day 7, and day 30 postoperatively using visual analogue scale and lower extremity functional scale, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyze the data.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Both groups showed a significant reduction of pain intensity (Day 0, mean 8.9, SD 1.0; Day 30, mean 2.2, SD 1.3 in bilateral total knee replacement; Day 0, mean 8.8, SD 1.1; Day 30, mean 2.0, SD 1.5 in unilateral total knee replacement; p < 0.001) and improvement in the functional capacity (Day 0, mean 16.2, SD 10.1; Day 30, mean 55.6, SD 14.6 in bilateral total knee replacement; Day 0, mean 19.1, SD 9.1; Day 30, mean 56.7, SD 15.8 in unilateral total knee replacement; p < 0.001) following total knee replacement at 30 days post-operatively. However, there was a non-significant difference noted between bilateral versus unilateral total knee replacement on the reduction of pain intensity (mean changes, 6.9 versus 6.8) and improvement in the functional capacity (mean changes, 39.4 versus 37.6) at 30 days post-operatively (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Simultaneous bilateral total knee replacement was associated with a similar reduction of pain intensity and recovery of function compared to unilateral total knee replacement, suggesting the use of simultaneous bilateral total knee replacement in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis since its costs and rehabilitation process could be reduced compared to staged bilateral total knee replacement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32293398
doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03269-3
pii: 10.1186/s12891-020-03269-3
pmc: PMC7161292
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
246Références
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013 Apr;99(2):191-5
pubmed: 23465514
Phys Ther. 2000 Mar;80(3):292-300
pubmed: 10696155
Knee Surg Relat Res. 2014 Dec;26(4):222-9
pubmed: 25505704
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2013 Apr;21(1):19-22
pubmed: 23629981
J Arthroplasty. 1998 Feb;13(2):172-9
pubmed: 9526210
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2014;48(2):127-35
pubmed: 24747618
Knee. 2002 May;9(2):133-7
pubmed: 11950577
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Feb;25(2):179-85
pubmed: 19195827
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Mar 3;18(1):97
pubmed: 28253923
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2016 Mar;46(3):200-16
pubmed: 26813750
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Jun;41(6):1073-93
pubmed: 21621130
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Nov;(380):17-29
pubmed: 11064969
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Oct;88(10):2146-51
pubmed: 17015590
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Jun;25(4):541-6
pubmed: 19356894
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Nov;(428):84-6
pubmed: 15534524
Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2019 Dec;54(6):709-713
pubmed: 31875071
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Oct;(367):210-5
pubmed: 10546617
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004 May;12(5):400-8
pubmed: 15094139
J Arthroplasty. 2006 Aug;21(5):642-9
pubmed: 16877148
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Jun;89(6):1220-6
pubmed: 17545424
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Mar 21;19(1):87
pubmed: 29562893
Int Orthop. 2009 Feb;33(1):101-4
pubmed: 17874240
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Aug 21;95(16):1441-9
pubmed: 23965693
J Arthroplasty. 2013 Aug;28(7):1141-7
pubmed: 23518424
Ann Rehabil Med. 2019 Dec;43(6):650-661
pubmed: 31918528
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2004;38(4):241-6
pubmed: 15618764
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2018 Jan 25;11:63-73
pubmed: 29416347
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Nov;103(7):1041-1045
pubmed: 28827053
Rev Gaucha Enferm. 2007 Jun;28(2):260-5
pubmed: 17907648
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005 Mar;35(3):136-46
pubmed: 15839307
J Orthop Case Rep. 2012 Jul-Sep;2(3):31-2
pubmed: 27298872
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Aug;471(8):2649-57
pubmed: 23564364
Knee. 2009 Dec;16(6):420-6
pubmed: 19464899
Orthopedics. 2015 Jan;38(1):e43-7
pubmed: 25611419
J Rheumatol. 2003 Aug;30(8):1822-4
pubmed: 12913941
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Dec 7;93(23):2203-13
pubmed: 22159856
ANZ J Surg. 2005 Sep;75(9):734-8
pubmed: 16173983
Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Jan;64(1):29-33
pubmed: 15208174
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Sep;(414):149-56
pubmed: 12966288
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Jan;31(1):31-5
pubmed: 26297691
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011 Oct;93(7):537-41
pubmed: 22004637
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Jul;(388):10-7
pubmed: 11451106
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Aug;85(8):1532-7
pubmed: 12925634
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1103-11
pubmed: 19282145
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Oct;85(10):1981-6
pubmed: 14563808
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Nov;(428):87-91
pubmed: 15534525