Search

Background Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) can cause hip pain and chondrolabral damage that may be managed non-operatively or surgically. Squatting motions require large degrees of hip flexion and underpin many daily and sporting tasks but may cause hip impingement and provoke pain. Differential effects of physiotherapist-led care and arthroscopy on biomechanics during squatting have not been examined previously. This study explored differences in 12-month changes in kinematics and moments during squatting between patients with FAIS treated with a physiotherapist-led intervention (Personalised Hip Therapy, PHT) and arthroscopy. Methods A subsample (n = 36) of participants with FAIS enrolled in a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm superiority randomised controlled trial underwent three-dimensional motion analysis during squatting at baseline and 12-months following random allocation to PHT (n = 17) or arthroscopy (n = 19). Changes in time-series and peak trunk, pelvis, and hip biomechanics, and squat velocity and maximum depth were explored between treatment groups. Results No significant differences in 12-month changes were detected between PHT and arthroscopy groups. Compared to baseline, the arthroscopy group squatted slower at follow-up (descent: mean difference −0.04 m∙s−1 (95%CI [−0.09 to 0.01]); ascent: −0.05 m∙s−1 [−0.11 to 0.01]%). No differences in squat depth were detected between or within groups. After adjusting for speed, trunk flexion was greater in both treatment groups at follow-up compared to baseline (descent: PHT 7.50° [−14.02 to −0.98]%; ascent: PHT 7.29° [−14.69 to 0.12]%, arthroscopy 16.32° [−32.95 to 0.30]%). Compared to baseline, both treatment groups exhibited reduced anterior pelvic tilt (descent: PHT 8.30° [0.21–16.39]%, arthroscopy −10.95° [−5.54 to 16.34]%; ascent: PHT −7.98° [−0.38 to 16.35]%, arthroscopy −10.82° [3.82–17.81]%), hip flexion (descent: PHT −11.86° [1.67–22.05]%, arthroscopy −16.78° [8.55–22.01]%; ascent: PHT −12.86° [1.30–24.42]%, arthroscopy −16.53° [6.72–26.35]%), and knee flexion (descent: PHT −6.62° [0.56– 12.67]%; ascent: PHT −8.24° [2.38–14.10]%, arthroscopy −8.00° [−0.02 to 16.03]%). Compared to baseline, the PHT group exhibited more plantarflexion during squat ascent at follow-up (−3.58° [−0.12 to 7.29]%). Compared to baseline, both groups exhibited lower external hip flexion moments at follow-up (descent: PHT −0.55 N∙m/BW∙HT[%] [0.05–1.05]%, arthroscopy −0.84 N∙m/BW∙HT[%] [0.06–1.61]%; ascent: PHT −0.464 N∙m/BW∙HT[%] [−0.002 to 0.93]%, arthroscopy −0.90 N∙m/BW∙HT[%] [0.13–1.67]%). Conclusion Exploratory data suggest at 12-months follow-up, neither PHT or hip arthroscopy are superior at eliciting changes in trunk, pelvis, or lower-limb biomechanics. Both treatments may induce changes in kinematics and moments, however the implications of these changes are unknown. Trial registration details Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry reference: ACTRN12615001177549. Trial registered 2/11/2015.

Objective: The Joint Effort Initiative (JEI) is an international collaboration of clinicians, researchers, and consumer organisations with a shared vision of improving the implementation of osteoarthritis management programs (OAMPs). This study aimed to identify JEI's future priorities and guide direction. Design: A two-part international survey to prioritise topics of importance to our membership and research stakeholders. Survey one presented a list of 40 topics under 5 themes. Consenting participants were asked to choose their top three topics in each theme. A short list of 25 topics was presented in survey two. Participants were asked to rank the importance (100-point NRS scale, 100 ​= ​highest priority). Response frequency (median, IQR) was used to rank the top priorities by theme. Results: Ninety-five participants completed survey one (61% female, 48% clinicians) and 57 completed survey two. The top ranked topic/s were:i. Promotion and advocacy: support training for health professionals (median 85, IQR 24).ii. Education and training: incorporating behaviour change into OAMPs (80, 16), advanced OA skills (80, 30), and integration of OA education into clinical training (80, 36).iii. Improving OAMPs delivery: regular updates on changes to best-evidence OA care (84, 24).iv. Future research: improve uptake of exercise, physical activity, and weight-loss (89, 16).v. Enhancing relationships, alliances, and shared knowledge: promote research collaborations (81, 30), share challenges and opportunities for OAMP implementation (80, 23). Conclusions: These topics will set the JEI's research and collaboration agenda for the next 5 years and stimulate ideas for others working in the field.

BackgroundOsteoarthritis (OA) is a major problem globally. First-line management comprises education and self-management strategies. Online support groups may be a low-cost method of facilitating self-management. ObjectiveThe aim of this randomized controlled pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility of the study design and implementation of an evidence-informed, expert-moderated, peer-to-peer online support group (My Knee Community) for people with knee OA. The impacts on psychological determinants of self-management, selected self-management behaviors, and health outcomes were secondary investigations. MethodsThis mixed methods study evaluated study feasibility (participant recruitment, retention, and costs), experimental intervention feasibility (acceptability and fidelity to the proposed design, including perceived benefit, satisfaction, and member engagement), psychological determinants (eg, self-efficacy and social support), behavioral measures, health outcomes, and harms. Of a total of 186, 63 (33.9%) participants (41/63, 65% experimental and 22/63, 35% control) with self-reported knee OA were recruited from 186 volunteers. Experimental group participants were provided membership to My Knee Community, which already had existing nonstudy members, and were recommended a web-based education resource (My Joint Pain). The control group received the My Joint Pain website recommendation only. Participants were not blinded to their group allocation or the study interventions. Participant-reported data were collected remotely using web-based questionnaires. A total of 10 experimental group participants also participated in semistructured interviews. The transcribed interview data and all forum posts by the study participants were thematically analyzed. ResultsStudy feasibility was supported by acceptable levels of retention; however, there were low levels of engagement with the support group by participants: 15% (6/41) of participants did not log in at all; the median number of times visited was 4 times per participant; only 29% (12/41) of participants posted, and there were relatively low levels of activity overall on the forum. This affected the results for satisfaction (overall mean 5.9/10, SD 2.7) and perceived benefit (17/31, 55%: yes). There were no differences among groups for quantitative outcomes. The themes discussed in the interviews were connections and support, information and advice, and barriers and facilitators. Qualitative data suggest that there is potential for people to derive benefit from connecting with others with knee OA by receiving support and assisting with unmet informational needs. ConclusionsAlthough a large-scale study is feasible, the intervention implementation was considered unsatisfactory because of low levels of activity and engagement by members. We recommend that expectations about the support group need to be made clear from the outset. Additionally, the platform design needs to be more engaging and rewarding, and membership should only be offered to people willing to share their personal stories and who are interested in learning from the experiences of others. Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001230145; http://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377958