Exercise therapy, manual therapy, or both, for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a factorial randomised controlled trial protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-pharmacological, non-surgical interventions are recommended as the first line of treatment for osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee. There is evidence that exercise therapy is effective for reducing pain and improving function in patients with knee OA, some evidence that exercise therapy is effective for hip OA, and early indications that manual therapy may be efficacious for hip and knee OA. There is little evidence as to which approach is more effective, if benefits endure, or if providing these therapies is cost-effective for the management of this disorder. The MOA Trial (Management of OsteoArthritis) aims to test the effectiveness of two physiotherapy interventions for improving disability and pain in adults with hip or knee OA in New Zealand. Specifically, our primary objectives are to investigate whether:</p> <p>1. Exercise therapy versus no exercise therapy improves disability at 12 months;</p> <p>2. Manual physiotherapy versus no manual therapy improves disability at 12 months;</p> <p>3. Providing physiotherapy programmes in addition to usual care is more cost-effective than usual care alone in the management of osteoarthritis at 24 months.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled trial. We plan to recruit 224 participants with hip or knee OA. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to receive either: (a) a supervised multi-modal exercise therapy programme; (b) an individualised manual therapy programme; (c) both exercise therapy and manual therapy; or, (d) no trial physiotherapy. All participants will continue to receive usual medical care. The outcome assessors, orthopaedic surgeons, general medical practitioners, and statistician will be blind to group allocation until the statistical analysis is completed. The trial is funded by Health Research Council of New Zealand Project Grants (Project numbers 07/199, 07/200).</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The MOA Trial will be the first to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing physiotherapy programmes of this kind, for the management of pain and disability in adults with hip or knee OA.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ref: ACTRN12608000130369.</p

What is the relationship between patients' and clinicians' reports of the outcomes of elective surgery?

OBJECTIVES: To identify studies in which patients' and clinicians' reports of health status and complications of one of four elective operations - hip and knee replacement, varicose vein surgery and groin hernia repair - are reported, and to describe the associations that have been reported between clinicians' and patients' reports. METHODS: Systematic search of several bibliographic databases and review of citations of articles meeting inclusion criteria. A narrative summary of the findings was conducted. RESULTS: Most of the 62 studies of health status identified were for hip (23) or knee (33) disease. The literature on complications was even more limited with 12 studies of surgical site infection, one for urinary tract infection and none for lower respiratory tract infections. Procedure-specific complications were restricted to one for arthroplasties and three for hernia repair. Despite considerable variation in the findings of studies, some clear patterns emerge, albeit they are largely based on arthroplasty. Patients' and clinicians' views of health status generally correlate moderately (0.5-0.6) when both are reporting on the same dimension of health status. Inevitably this is confined to disability, though patients' and clinicians' reports of symptoms are also moderately correlated. In contrast, comparisons of different dimensions, such as patients' reports of disability and clinicians' reports of impairment, result in poor correlation (0.3). There is huge variation in the way postoperative complications are measured which limits the extent to which an overview can be undertaken. Despite that, moderate to strong correlations have been reported between patients' and clinicians' views of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' views of their level of disability reflect clinicians' views and can be relied upon to assess this dimension of health status. In addition, patients are the 'gold standard' judges of symptoms and quality of life. Given these findings, clinicians, provider managers, commissioners and politicians can be confident that patients' reports provide an accurate indication of the outcome of elective surgery