Knee-extensor strength, symptoms, and need for surgery after two, four, or six exercise sessions/week using a home-based one-exercise program: A randomized dose-response trial of knee-extensor resistance exercise in patients eligible for knee replacement (the QUADX-1 trial)

Rasmus Skov Husted, Anders Troelsen, Henrik Husted, Birk Mygind Grønfeldt, Kristian Thorborg, Thomas Kallemose, Michael Skovdal Rathleff, Thomas Bandholm
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.07.21254965

Abstract

Objective To investigate firstly the efficacy of three different dosages of one home-based, knee-extensor resistance exercise on knee-extensor strength in patients eligible for knee replacement, and secondly, the influence of exercise on symptoms, physical function and decision on surgery.

Method One-hundred and forty patients eligible for knee replacement were randomized to three groups: 2, 4 or 6 home-based knee-extensor resistance exercise-sessions per week (group 2, 4 and 6 respectively) for 12 weeks. Primary outcome: isometric knee-extensor strength. Secondary outcomes: Oxford Knee Score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, average knee pain last week (0-10 numeric rating scale), 6-minute walk test, stair climbing test, exercise adherence and “need for surgery”.

Results Primary analysis: Intention-to-treat analysis of 140 patients did not find statistically significant differences between the groups from baseline to after 12 weeks of exercise in isometric knee-extensor strength: Group 2 vs. 4 (0.003 Nm/kg (0.2%) [95% CI -0.15 to 0.15], P=0.965) and group 4 vs. 6 (−0.04 Nm/kg (−2.7%) [95% CI -0.15 to 0.12], P=0.628). Secondary analysis: Intention-to-treat analyses showed statistically significant differences between the two and six sessions/week groups in favor of the two sessions/week group for Oxford Knee Score: 4.8 OKS points (15.2%) [1.3 to 8.3], P=0.008) and avg. knee pain last week (NRS 0-10): - 1.3 NRS points (−19.5%) [-2.3 to -0.2], P=0.018. After the 12-week exercise intervention, data were available for 117 patients (N=39/group): 38 (32.5%) patients wanted surgery and 79 (67.5%) postponed surgery. This was independent of exercise dosage.

Conclusion In patients eligible for knee-replacement we found no between-group differences in isometric knee extensor strength after 2, 4 and 6 knee-extensor resistance exercise sessions per week. We saw no indication of an exercise dose-response relationship for isometric knee-extensor strength and only clinically irrelevant within group changes. For some secondary outcome (e.g. KOOS subscales) we found clinically relevant within group changes, which could help explain why only one in three patients decided to have surgery after the simple home-based exercise intervention.

Introduction

Exercise therapy can reduce symptoms and postpone surgery in about 50% of patients with knee OA1–4 and guidelines recommend that exercise therapy is tried out before surgery is considered in patients eligible for knee replacement.5–10 Because the indication for knee replacement is not clear-cut, identifying the right patients to operate at the right time is difficult11,12 – making the coordination of non-surgical and surgical care crucial in selecting the right candidates for knee replacement.13–16 Any changes in symptoms after exercise therapy may play an important role in the shared decision-making process for surgery.17–20

Exercise programs for patients with knee OA like ‘Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark’ (GLA:D) - successfully implemented worldwide21 - and ‘Better management of patients with OsteoArthritis’ (BOA) support the effectiveness of exercise therapy and education for these patients and deliver optimized care.22–25 The exercise programs are supervised, require physical attendance at fixed times and often require self-payment; factors which can be barriers for some patients and hinder participation and long-term adherence, creating inequality for the care accessible.26–29 An important element in exercise programs for patients with knee OA is knee-extensor strength30, as decreased knee-extensor strength is associated with an increased risk of developing knee OA,31 risk of knee pain and decline in function.32 According to the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) two exercise sessions per week is the recommended minimum dosage required for muscle strength gains, four is likely optimal, and six is likely to have no additional benefit, but could increase pain.33,34 Based on this, we investigated the dose-response relationship of one home-based resistance exercise targeting the knee-extensor muscles, using a very simple and low-cost exercise option. Compared to supervised exercise programs, this solution does not require physical attendance at fixed times and is free of charge – providing patients with an alternative treatment option.

We asked the following:

  1. Is there a dose-response relationship between knee-extensor resistance exercise and change in isometric knee-extensor strength in patients eligible for knee replacement?

  2. Do different dosages of simple knee-extensor resistance exercise change symptoms and decision on surgery in patients eligible for knee replacement?

The primary aim was to investigate the efficacy of three different dosages of home-based, knee-extensor resistance exercise on isometric knee-extensor strength in patients eligible for knee replacement due to severe knee OA, and secondly, to investigate the influence of exercise on symptoms, physical function and decision on surgery. The hypothesis was that an exercise dosage of four knee-extensor resistance exercise sessions per week would elicit the greatest change in isometric knee-extensor strength pre-operatively compared to two or six sessions per week.

Methods

Trial design

The QUADX-1 trial is a three-arm parallel-group randomized dose-response trial with three intervention groups and no control group. The trial was pre-registered on clinicaltrials.gov on 10th October, 2016 (NCT02931058) before enrollment of the first patient, and the full trial protocol – including protocol amendments – was published 18th January, 2018.35 Approvals from the Ethics Committee of the Capital Region, Denmark (H-16025136) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (2012-58-0004) were obtained before the first patient was enrolled.

Trial amendments

Due to an oversight, the second research question and purpose were not pre-registered. Hence, we consider them secondary and exploratory. All other trial amendments are reported in the trial protocol.35

Participants

Patients potentially eligible for trial participation were recruited at the surgical outpatient clinic. The inclusion criteria were: eligible for knee replacement due to knee OA (assessed by an orthopedic surgeon), radiographically verified knee OA with Kellgren-Lawrence classification ≥ 2 (Kellgren-Lawrence scores 2 were included to mimic everyday clinical practice),36,37 average knee pain ≥ 3 (Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)) in the last week, eligible for home-based knee-extensor resistance exercise, age ≥ 45 years, resident in one of three municipalities involved in the trial (Copenhagen, Hvidovre or Broendby) and able to speak and understand Danish. The exclusion criteria were: exercise therapy being contra-indicated, neurological disorder, diagnosed systemic disease (American Society of Anesthesiologists’ physical status classification score ≥ 4),38 terminal illness, severe bone deformity demanding use of non-standard implants, or a greater weekly alcohol consumption than the national recommendation.39

Interventions

Following baseline assessment, the patients were referred to a physiotherapist in their local municipal rehabilitation setting. Here the patients were instructed how to perform a single knee-extensor resistance exercise at home. The knee-extensor resistance exercise was performed sitting on a chair with an exercise band wrapped around the ankle and fixed behind a door for resistance. Patients were provided with a personal exercise band for exercising at home and a brochure with instructional notes and illustrations. The patients were randomized to one of three exercise dosage groups for twelve weeks: the two sessions/week group, the four sessions/week group or the six sessions/week group. For all groups, training comprised only the single knee-extensor resistance exercise. Patients were instructed to perform the exercise in three sets of twelve repetitions with each repetition lasting eight seconds (concentric phase 3 s, isometric phase 1 s, eccentric phase 4 s). The intervention was personalized to the extent where each patient was exercising with an individual absolute resistance corresponding to a relative load of twelve repetition maximum (RM). The patients were instructed to continue until volitional muscular failure. That is, until the knee-extensor muscles were maximally fatigued, and they were not able to perform further repetitions. If volitional muscular failure occurred before twelve RM, the resistance of the elastic band was adjusted so that the pre-determined number of repetitions could be completed (decrease in distance between the two endpoints of the elastic band). Whenever the resistance in the elastic band became too low (i.e., more than twelve repetitions per set could be performed), the patients were instructed to increase the resistance in the elastic band to achieve a new resistance corresponding to a relative load of twelve RM (increase in distance between the two endpoints of the elastic band). Detailed intervention description can be found in the trial protocol35 and a walkthrough video of the exercise is freely available online (https://bit.ly/3i59CJn).

Assessments and outcomes

Outcomes were assessed: at baseline (t0), after twelve weeks of home-based exercise/before surgery (t1), at hospital discharge (1-8 days after surgery) (t2) and three months after surgery (t3). Outcomes at endpoints t2 and t3 were only collected for patients that underwent surgery. The primary endpoint was after the exercise period (t1) and the secondary endpoints were just before hospital discharge (t2) and three months after surgery (t3). After the 12-week exercise period, at endpoint t1, each patient’s decision on surgery was re-evaluated in a shared decision-making process between the patient and orthopedic surgeon (i.e. continue with exercise therapy or schedule knee replacement). Outcome assessments were performed blinded by the primary investigator and a research assistant dedicated to the trial.

Primary outcome

The primary outcome was change in isometric knee-extensor strength from baseline to after the exercise period (t0-t1). Isometric knee-extensor strength was measured using a computerized strength chair (Good Strength Chair, Metitur Oy, Jyvaskyla, Finland), which is valid and reliable in the knee replacement population.40 Five measurements of maximal isometric knee-extensor strength at 60° knee flexion were completed, separated by 60-s pauses. The patients were instructed to extend their knee as forcefully as possible with a gradual increase in force over a 5-s period while receiving strong standardized verbal encouragement. Isometric knee-extensor strength is expressed as the maximal voluntary torque per kilogram body mass (Nm/kg). The highest obtained value was used for analysis.

Secondary outcomes

The secondary outcomes were change in performance-based function comprising six-minute walk test (6MWT) and stair climb test (SCT), self-reported disability; Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), current knee pain and average knee pain during the last week (0-10 NRS), “need for surgery” and objectively measured exercise adherence (t0-t1, t0-t2 and t0-t3). Other outcomes were registration of adverse events and harms.

The “need for surgery” outcome was an assessment of the patients’ self-perceived need for surgery. After the 12-week exercise period at outcome assessment t1 the patients were asked by the outcome assessor: “Based on your knee symptoms in the last week would you say that you need knee surgery?” Three answer options were possible: 1) Yes, I believe I need surgery, 2) I do not know or 3) No, I do not believe I need surgery.

Exercise therapy adherence was objectively quantified using a sensor attached to the exercise band (BandCizer© sensor technology).41–43 The sensor collects and stores data on date, time, number of sets, repetitions and time-under-tension (TUT). Patients were defined as adherent if >75% of the prescribed exercise sessions were completed.

Detailed information on the secondary outcomes is reported in the protocol paper.35

Sample size

The sample size was calculated for a test of superiority (four knee-extensor resistance exercise sessions per week is superior to two or six sessions per week). For the primary planned three-group one-way ANOVA analysis, a sample size of 126 patients (42 per group) was required to obtain a power of 80%. The a priori sample size calculation was based on a normal mean difference with a two-sided significance level of 0.025 (Bonferroni correction for two tests (2 vs. 4 and 4 vs. 6), a minimal clinical important difference (MCID) of 0.15 Nm/kg (15%) and a common standard deviation of 0.22 Nm/kg in isometric knee-extensor strength.44 To allow for a dropout rate of 10%, a total of 140 patients were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis.

Randomization

The patients were randomly assigned by a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. The random allocation sequence was computer-generated using simple (unrestricted) randomization by a statistician otherwise not involved in the trial. One hundred and forty sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes were generated. When a patient was included in the trial a research assistant independent of the trial opened an envelope and informed the patient’s municipality of the exercise group allocation.

Blinding

All outcome assessors and the data analysts were blinded to the exercise group allocation. At outcome assessments the assessors started by informing the patients not to mention their exercise dosage. For analysis, the data was coded to conceal group allocation, blinding the data assessors and analysts to the patients’ allocation. The physiotherapists and patients were not blinded to the allocation due to the nature of the intervention, however, the patients were blinded to the other exercise dosages and the study hypothesis.

Statistics

The primary intention-to-treat superiority analysis tested the hypothesis that an exercise dosage of four knee-extensor resistance exercise sessions per week would elicit a greater change in isometric knee-extensor strength pre-operatively compared to two or six sessions per week. For all outcomes, between group contrasts were compared using analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA). Normality assumptions of the model residuals were checked to ensure that the underlying assumptions of the statistical model were met. Normal distribution of data was checked by q-q plots and histograms. Analyses were adjusted for the following baseline variables: isometric knee-extensor strength, KOOS symptoms, KOOS ADL, KOOS sport and 6MWT. These adjustments were not prespecified. In a secondary analysis, the two sessions/week and six sessions/week groups were compared and follow the same principles as the primary analysis. As supplementary analyses, simple regression models were performed using the pooled exercise adherence data across all three groups. The dependent variables were the primary and secondary outcomes and the independent variable was exercise adherence quantified in two ways: 1) as total number of completed exercise sessions and 2) as total time-under-tension (TUT) per patient. All analyses followed the ITT principle and to create full datasets, missing data were imputed using multiple imputation (100 imputation sets). Multiple imputation models were based on age, gender, group allocation and all previous scores in relevant outcomes. Missing data break down is presented in Supplement 1. All analyses followed the pre-specified analysis plan35 and were performed in SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1.

Results

Participants

Between 25th October 2016 and 8th January 2019, 898 patients potentially eligible for knee replacement were assessed for eligibility. One-hundred and forty patients were included and randomized (Figure 1). Assessments at the primary endpoint (after 12 weeks of exercise [t1]) was completed for 117 patients (39/group). At the two secondary endpoints, 32 patients were available for assessment. Reasons for drop-out and missing data are provided in figure 1. Baseline characteristics are provided in table 1 and in Supplement 2.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Flow chart of each assessment time-point of the trial according to the CONSORT guidelines.86 ITT = intention-to-treat analysis. Dotted lines indicate assessment time-points after surgery. *6 patients (N=2/group) wanted surgery but had competing co-morbidities disqualifying them as candidates for surgery (Supplement 6).

View this table:
Table 1. Baseline characteristics (t0).

Assessment after exercise

Primary outcome: Intention-to-treat analysis did not find statistically significant differences between the groups in change between baseline and following 12 weeks of exercise (primary endpoint (t0-t1)) in isometric knee-extensor strength: two sessions/week group vs. four sessions/week group; 0.003 Nm/kg (0.2%) [95% CI -0.15 to 0.15], P=0.965, and four sessions/week group vs. six sessions/week group; -0.04 Nm/kg (−2.7%) [95% CI -0.15 to 0.12], P=0.628 (Figure 2) (Table 2).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Isometric knee-extensor strength (Nm/kg) at baseline (t0) and after twelve weeks of home-based knee-extensor strength exercise (t1) across the three groups. The X represents the mean value and the whiskers the corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

View this table:
Table 2. Mean change in all outcomes between baseline and following 12 weeks home-based exercise (t0-t1). Intention-to-treat analysis, N = 140. One-way ANOVA based on imputed data.

Secondary outcomes: Intention-to-treat analyses showed no between group differences for any group comparisons or secondary outcomes at the primary endpoint after 12 weeks exercise. Results from regression analyses in Supplement 4.

Secondary analysis: Intention-to-treat analyses showed statistically significant differences between the two and six sessions/week groups in favor of the two sessions/week group for Oxford Knee Score: 4.8 OKS points (15.2%) [1.3 to 8.3], P=0.008) and avg. knee pain last week (NRS 0-10): -1.3 NRS points (−19.5%) [-2.3 to -0.2], P=0.018. No other differences were found for the secondary analysis (Supplement 3).

Due to the large proportion of patients who postponed surgery after the exercise intervention, only 32 patients were available for the post-operative intention-to-treat analyses. No between group differences for any outcomes were observed at these endpoints (Supplement 5).

Exercise adherence

Data from 95 patients was available for the exercise adherence assessment. Of the 45 patients without available data, 23 did not complete the 12 weeks of exercise (dropped-out and missing data), 8 had less than 6 recorded exercise sessions and 14 had technical problems or lost the BandCizer© sensor. Exercise adherence was quantified as 1) total number of sessions and 2) total time-under-tension (TUT). When exercise adherence was quantified as total number of sessions both the two and four sessions/week groups completed >75% of the prescribed dosage (84.8% and 81.9%, respectively). When quantified as total time-under-tension (TUT) no groups completed >75% of the prescribed dosage (Table 3) (Figure 3).

View this table:
Table 3. Exercise adherence (t0-t1).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Adherence to prescribed exercise dosage across the three groups with exercise quantified as total number of exercise sessions. Circles represent the mean number of recorded exercise sessions for each patient. Red circles represent patients prescribed two exercise sessions per week. Black circles represent patients prescribed four exercise sessions per week. Blue circles represent patients prescribed six exercise sessions per week. The red dotted line represents the prescribed exercise dosage in the two sessions/week group (24 sessions). The black dotted line represents the prescribed exercise dosage in the four sessions/week group (48 sessions). The blue dotted line represents the prescribed exercise dosage in the six sessions/week group (72 sessions).

Treatment decision after exercise therapy

As a post hoc analysis, the number of patients who underwent surgery and those who postponed surgery were registered. Of the 117 patients with follow-up assessments after 12 weeks of exercise (Figure 1), 79 (67.5%) postponed surgery, 32 (27.4%) underwent knee replacement, and 6 (5.1%) wanted surgery, but the orthopedic surgeon deemed this contra-indicated due to co-morbidities (Table 4) (Supplement 6).

View this table:
Table 4. Patients’ self-perceived “need for surgery” and surgical decision after exercise therapy.

Harms

A total of 14 adverse events were registered during the trial period. Exacerbated knee pain due to the exercise intervention was the most frequent cause of harm (Figure 1).

Discussion

In patients eligible for knee replacement four knee-extensor resistance exercise sessions per week were not superior to two and six sessions per week in improving isometric knee-extensor strength – indicating no exercise dose-response relationship. Independent of exercise dosage, only one in three patients completing the exercise therapy intervention decided to undergo surgery for their knee OA.

The results of the present trial are relevant for the following reasons. Firstly, larger exercise dosages do not seem to be more effective than smaller. Secondly, an exercise intervention with one home-based exercise can lead to clinically relevant improvements in symptoms comparable to more comprehensive interventions in patients eligible for knee replacement.1–4,22,45,46 Finally, a simple exercise therapy intervention, in a model of coordinated care, can prompt the majority of patients eligible for knee replacement to postpone surgery.

Efficacy of different knee-extensor resistance exercise dosages

We found no difference in knee-extensor strength gains between the three investigated exercise dosages after twelve weeks as no between-group contrasts reached the MCID of 0.15 Nm/kg. This finding is unexpected based on the ACSM recommendations for muscle strength gains (larger exercise dosages lead to larger muscle strength gains).33 A possible explanation is that the ACSM recommendations are based on healthy people, not patients with knee OA eligible for knee replacement. Patients with severe knee OA likely respond differently to knee-focused exercise due to their condition and associated impairments (e.g. arthrogenic muscle inhibition)47 – something which could interfere with the exercise dose-response relationship classically seen in healthy people.48 The results suggest that patients eligible for knee replacement increase their knee-extensor strength equally when exercising with large or small dosages. This is supported by the result from our recent meta-regression analysis, in which we found no relationship between knee-extensor resistance exercise dosage and change in knee-extensor strength in patients eligible for knee replacement (meta-regression was completed after initiation of the QUADX-1 trial).49 Patients with knee OA might not need large exercise dosages to improve muscle strength – something also suggested in the recent START trial.45 In the START trial, high-intensity strength training was not superior to low-intensity strength training, nor to an attention-control in knee OA.45 It suggests that a classic exercise-dose-response relationship may not exist in knee OA, and that some of the effect, believed to be exercise-specific, may in fact be caused by “unspecific” or “contextual” factors.45,50

Another factor that may contribute to our finding of no dose-response relationship is adherence to the prescribed dosages. As seen in figure 3 there is some overlap between the completed exercise sessions across the three groups. This likely makes the difference in completed exercise between the groups less clear. Even-though the six sessions/week group completed more exercise in total, compared with the two and four sessions/week groups, the six sessions/week group had the lowest adherence relative to the prescribed dosage (66.7% of prescribed sessions), not reaching the predefined criterion of >75%. This lack of completed exercise could lead to a missing physiological response and concomitant increase in knee-extensor strength.34,51

Finally, the applied MCID of 0.15 Nm/kg might have been too large to establish differences between groups. However, the level of change in knee-extensor strength should also be large enough to potentially affect clinical outcomes. A meta-regression analysis from 2017 suggested that an increase of 30-40% in knee-extensor strength is needed to induce beneficial effects on pain and disability in patients with knee OA.52

Secondary outcomes

For the secondary outcomes in the primary analysis, none of the differences between the groups were statistically significant or reached the MCID for any outcome. In the secondary analysis, significant differences between groups two and six sessions/week were found for OKS and avg. knee pain last week (NRS 0-10), 4.8 OKS and 1.3 NRS points, respectively, although none of the differences reached the MCID.

The two and four sessions/week groups both reached the MCID of 8-10 points for the KOOS subscales symptoms, pain and ADL, while only the two sessions/week group also reached this change for subscales sport and quality of life.53 The six sessions/week group did not reach the MCID for any KOOS subscales. A similar tendency was seen for OKS and 6MWT where the two sessions/week group reached the MCID of 6 points and 20 m, respectively, while the four and six sessions/week groups did not.54,55 On the NRS 0-10 scale for pain the two and four sessions/week groups both reached ‘slightly better’ improvements, with - 1.8 and -1.1 changes in avg. knee pain last week (NRS 0-10), respectively, while the six sessions/week did not.56 Finally, for the SCT no MCID is known while the minimal detectable change is reported to be 2.6 seconds.57 No groups reached this for neither the up or down stair climbing assessment.

In general, the two and four sessions/week groups reached the MCID for the outcomes more often than the six sessions/week group. This could be explained by the larger exercise dose with more frequent sessions leaving less time to recover between sessions – something that could lead to increase in knee pain and decreased physical function.

Implications for one home-based exercise and coordinated non-surgical and surgical care

The results from the QUADX-1 trial are comparable to other trials reporting similar proportions of patients with severe OA who postpone surgery and corresponding clinically relevant improvements in patient-reported outcomes after exercise therapy.1–4 Compared to the intervention in the QUADX-1 trial, the exercise therapy interventions in these trials are more comprehensive and costly, comprising more exercises and supervision. This suggests that the intervention and associated exercise dosage needed to improve symptoms in patients eligible for knee replacement does not have to be extensive or comprehensive.45 This corresponds well to the results from the supplementary regression analyses and our recent meta-regression analysis indicating no dose-response between exercise dosage and change in outcomes before scheduled knee replacement.49 A minimal exercise approach as part of coordinated non-surgical and surgical care pathway in severe knee OA seems relevant based on current dose-response findings49 and specific exercise effects in knee OA.50 The effects observed in the present trial across different outcomes may be a small specific effect of exercise and/or of other contextual factors. It could be caused by contact with healthcare professionals58–60, regression to the mean, natural cause of the disease,61 or simply by placebo effect50 – making it difficult to ascribe too much specific cause-of-effect to exercise therapy. In line with this, the recent DISCO trial found equivalent improvements after a supervised exercise and education program, and saline injections in patients with knee OA.50 These factors question the best way to provide (exercise) care for patients with knee OA and could suggest that supervised exercise is not the most cost-effective approach.

The large number of patients who postponed surgery highlights the importance of coordinating non-surgical and surgical care in patients eligible for knee replacement. The proportion of patients postponing and choosing surgery across the three groups appeared similar – indicating that the decision to postpone surgery was independent of the prescribed exercise therapy dosage (not powered for this outcome). A contributing factor explaining the large number of patients postponing surgery could be the non-specific effect of the applied ‘model’ of coordinated non-surgical and surgical care.16,59,60,62–64 In this ‘model’, the patients’ decision on surgical treatment was re-evaluated by the patient and orthopedic surgeon after the exercise period. This re-evaluation based on symptom changes, combined with additional attention from an orthopedic surgeon, could have facilitated the patients’ decision to postpone surgery.58–60,65–68 This is exemplified in table 4 showing that patients who believe they need surgery, undergo surgery, while those who “don’t know” or do not believe they need surgery postpone it.

In the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) concept it is assumed that exercise therapy before planned surgery (exercise-based pre-habilitation) is always followed by surgery.69–73 We have previously argued that the premise for exercise therapy before potential surgery – to enhance post-surgical outcomes in patients eligible for knee replacement – should be questioned49 as several systematic reviews conclude no clinically-relevant effect post-operatively.49,74–83 Instead of being a predetermined care pathway (leading to surgery), exercise therapy before potential surgery could be used to inform the shared decision-making process when planning a care pathway,8,17,18 which complies with guideline recommendations while being cost-effective.5–10,84 Based on the results from the QUADX-1 trial, we suggest using simple (one exercise) home-based resistance exercise therapy within the ERAS concept to “pre-evaluate” the need for surgery in patients with severe knee OA rather than to “prepare” patients for surgery.

Limitations

The Danish healthcare system is publicly funded, and treatment is therefore free. Refusing surgery after having been on a waiting list does not postpone the possibility of surgery for years. The patients can be re-assessed by an orthopaedic surgeon within months and have surgery scheduled if needed. This might limit the comparability to other countries with a different healthcare system. The patients were aware that the sensor attached to the exercise band recorded their exercise adherence. This might potentially have affected their exercise adherence.85

Conclusion

In patients eligible for knee-replacement we found no between-group differences in isometric knee extensor strength after 2, 4 and 6 knee-extensor resistance exercise sessions per week. We saw no indication of an exercise dose-response relationship for isometric knee-extensor strength and only clinically irrelevant within group changes. For some secondary outcome (e.g. KOOS subscales) we found clinically relevant within group changes, which could help explain why only one in three patients decided to have surgery after the simple home-based exercise intervention.

Data Availability

The raw data is available by contacting the corresponding author Rasmus Skov Husted via email: rasmus.skov.husted{at}regionh.dk

Contributions

Conception and design: Husted, Troelsen, Rathleff, Thorborg and Bandholm.

Data acquisition: Husted and Grønfeldt.

Analysis and interpretation of the data: All authors.

Drafting of the article: Husted.

Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical expertise: Kallemose.

Final approval of the article: All authors. Mr. Husted (rasmus.skov.husted{at}regionh.dk) and Prof. Bandholm (thomas.quaade.bandholm{at}regionh.dk) takes responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole.

Funding and Role of the funding source

This work was supported by grants from The Capital Region’s strategic funds (R142-A5363), The Capital Region’s foundation for cross-continuum research (P-2015-1-01, P-2018-1-02, P-2019-1-03), Copenhagen University Hospital Amager-Hvidovre’s strategic funds (2019-800), and The Danish Rheumatism Association (R156-A4923). The funding sources had no role in this work.

Competing interests

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form. Anders Troelsen declares research support, consulting fees and advisory board member (Pfizer Denmark and Zimmer Biomet), travel/accommodations/meeting expenses, payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus (Zimmer Biomet) unrelated to listed activities, and participation on a data safety monitoring board: Danish knee arthroplasty register. Thomas Bandholm declares payment for lectures (Zimmer Biomet, Novartis), fees for book chapters (Munksgaard) and for organizing post-graduate education (Danish Physical Therapy Organization). Thomas Bandholm is an editorial board member with British Journal of Sports Medicine and PLOS ONE. All other authors declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Supplement 1. Missing data at the different endpoints

View this table:
eTable 1. Missing data at the different endpoints.

Supplement 2. Separate baseline characteristics for the patients lost to follow-up, the remaining patients and the sub-sample that underwent surgery

View this table:
eTable 2. Baseline characteristics (t0). Participants lost to follow-up.
View this table:
eTable 3. Baseline characteristics (t0). Remaining participants.
View this table:
eTable 4. Baseline characteristics for the sub-sample that underwent surgery (t0).

Supplement 3. Secondary analyses (Mean change between group two and six sessions/week)

View this table:
eTable 5. Mean change between group two and six sessions/week for all outcomes between baseline and following 12 weeks home-based exercise (t0-t1). Intention-to-treat analysis, N = 140. One-way ANOVA based on imputed data.

Supplement 4. Supplementary regression analyses

For the supplementary regression analyses the three groups were pooled into one sample. No association was observed between the level of exercise adherence and pre-operative changes for any outcomes, except for a weak inverse association between total number of sessions and change in the six-minute walk test (Slope -0.7323 [95% -1.819 to -0.1826]) (eTable 6).

View this table:
eTable 6. Simple regression models.

Supplement 5. Results for the post-surgical assessments (t2 and t3)

Primary analyses (t0-t2)

View this table:
eTable 7. Mean change in all outcomes between baseline and acutely after surgery (t0-t2). Intention-to-treat analysis, N = 32. One-way ANOVA based on imputed data.

Secondary analyses (Mean change between group two and six sessions/week)

View this table:
eTable 8. Mean change between group two and six sessions/week for all outcomes between baseline and acutely after surgery (t0-t2). Intention-to-treat analysis, N = 32. One-way ANOVA based on imputed data.

Primary analyses (t0-t3)

View this table:
eTable 9. Mean change in all outcomes between baseline and three months after surgery (t0-t3). Intention-to-treat analysis, N = 32. One-way ANOVA based on imputed data.

Secondary analyses (Mean change between group two and six sessions/week)

View this table:
eTable 10. Mean change between group two and six sessions/week for all outcomes between baseline and three months after surgery (t0-t3). Intention-to-treat analysis, N = 32. One-way ANOVA based on imputed data.

Supplement 6. Co-morbidities disqualifying six patients for surgery after exercise

View this table:
eTable 11. Co-morbidities disqualifying six patients for surgery after exercise (assessed by an orthopedic surgeon).

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgement go to: Research assistant Line Holst for help with trial management and outcomes assessment, and to the physiotherapists in the participating municipalities (Broendby, Hvidovre and Copenhagen) and the orthopedic surgeons at the Orthopedic Department at Copenhagen University Hospital Amager-Hvidovre.

Footnotes

  • E-mail addresses: Anders Troelsen (a_troelsen{at}hotmail.com), Henrik Husted (henrik.husted{at}regionh.dk), Birk Mygind Grønfeldt (birk.mygind.groenfeldt{at}regionh.dk), Kristian Thorborg (kristian.thorborg{at}regionh.dk), Thomas Kallemose (thomas.kallemose{at}regionh.dk), Michael Skovdal Rathleff (misr{at}hst.aau.dk), Thomas Bandholm (thomas.quaade.bandholm{at}regionh.dk)

  • Section on "trial amendments" has been added.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, Rathleff MS, Arendt-Nielsen L, Rasmussen S, et al. Total knee replacement and non-surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis: 2-year outcome from two parallel randomized controlled trials. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018 Sep;26(9):1170–80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.
    Gwynne-Jones JH, Wilson RA, Wong JMY, Abbott JH, Gwynne-Jones DP. The Outcomes of Nonoperative Management of Patients With Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Triaged to a Physiotherapy-Led Clinic at Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up and Factors Associated With Progression to Surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Feb;
  3. 3.
    Dabare C, Le Marshall K, Leung A, Page CJ, Choong PF, Lim KK. Differences in presentation, progression and rates of arthroplasty between hip and knee osteoarthritis: Observations from an osteoarthritis cohort study-a clear role for conservative management. Int J Rheum Dis. 2017 Oct;20(10):1350–60.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Dell’Isola A, Jönsson T, Rolfson O, Cronström A, Englund M, Dahlberg D. Willingness to undergo joint surgery following a first-line intervention for osteoarthritis: data from the BOA register. Arthritis Care Res. 2020;
  5. 5.↵
    Sundhedsstyrelsen - Knæartrose. Knæartrose – nationale kliniske retningslinjer og faglige visitationsretningslinjer. 1st ed. Kbh.; 2012. 1–80 p.
  6. 6.
    Bannuru, R. R., Osani, M. C., Vaysbrot, E. E., Arden, N. K., Bennell KL, Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M. A., et al. OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019;27(11).
  7. 7.
    Fransen M, McConnell S, Bell M. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;9(1):CD004376.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    Geenen R, Overman CL, Christensen R, Åsenlöf P, Capela S, Huisinga KL, et al. EULAR recommendations for the health professional’s approach to pain management in inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 May 3;annrheumdis-2017-212662.
  9. 9.
    NICE. Osteoarthritis: care and management in adults. Clinical guideline CG177. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
  10. 10.↵
    Kolasinski SL, Neogi T, Hochberg MC, Oatis C, Guyatt G, Block J, et al. 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Feb;72(2):149–62.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Cobos R, Latorre A, Aizpuru F, Guenaga JI, Sarasqueta C, Escobar A, et al. Variability of indication criteria in knee and hip replacement: an observational study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010 Dec;11(1).
  12. 12.↵
    Gossec L, Paternotte S, Bingham CO, Clegg DO, Coste P, Conaghan PG, et al. OARSI/OMERACT Initiative to Define States of Severity and Indication for Joint Replacement in Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis. An OMERACT 10 Special Interest Group. J Rheumatol. 2011 Aug;38(8):1765–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    Hofstede SN, Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Vliet Vlieland TPM, van den Ende CHM, Nelissen RGHH, van Bodegom-Vos L. Barriers and Facilitators Associated with Non-Surgical Treatment Use for Osteoarthritis Patients in Orthopaedic Practice. Coles JA, editor. PLOS ONE. 2016 Jan 22;11(1):e0147406.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.
    Allen KD, Choong PF, Davis AM, Dowsey MM, Dziedzic KS, Emery C, et al. Osteoarthritis: Models for appropriate care across the disease continuum. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016 Jun;30(3):503–35.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.
    Briggs AM, Jordan JE, Jennings M, Speerin R, Bragge P, Chua J, et al. Supporting the Evaluation and Implementation of Musculoskeletal Models of Care: A Globally Informed Framework for Judging Readiness and Success. Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Apr;69(4):567–77.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Brown C, Gordon B, Bucknill A. The Impact of the Osteoarthritis Hip and Knee Service (OAHKS) in Melbourne health: a review from 2006–2009. Orthop Proc. 2011;93-B (Suppl. II)(211).
  17. 17.↵
    Ditmyer MM, Topp R, Pifer M. Prehabilitation in preparation for orthopaedic surgery. Orthop Nurs. 2002;21(5):43–54.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Slover J, Shue J, Koenig K. Shared Decision-making in Orthopaedic Surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Apr;470(4):1046–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.
    Hurley MV, Walsh NE, Mitchell H, Nicholas J, Patel A. Long-term outcomes and costs of an integrated rehabilitation program for chronic knee pain: A pragmatic, cluster randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res. 2012 Feb;64(2):238–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    Ravaud P, Flipo R-M, Boutron I, Roy C, Mahmoudi A, Giraudeau B, et al. ARTIST (osteoarthritis intervention standardized) study of standardised consultation versus usual care for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee in primary care in France: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009 Feb 23;338(feb 231):421–b421.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    GLA:D® International Network. GLA:D® International Network [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://gladinternational.org/home/
  22. 22.↵
    1. Pan F
    Jönsson T, Eek F, Dell’Isola A, Dahlberg LE, Ekvall Hansson E. The Better Management of Patients with Osteoarthritis Program: Outcomes after evidence-based education and exercise delivered nationwide in Sweden. Pan F, editor. PLOS ONE. 2019 Sep 19;14(9):e0222657.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.
    Thorstensson CA, Garellick G, Rystedt H, Dahlberg LE. Better Management of Patients with Osteoarthritis: Development and Nationwide Implementation of an Evidence-Based Supported Osteoarthritis Self-Management Programme. Musculoskeletal Care. 2015 Jun;13(2):67–75.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.
    Skou ST, Roos EM. Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:DTM): evidence-based education and supervised neuromuscular exercise delivered by certified physiotherapists nationwide. BMC Musculoskelet Disord [Internet]. 2017 Dec [cited 2018 Mar 5];18(1). Available from: http://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-017-1439-y
  25. 25.↵
    GLA:D Denmark. GLA:D Denmark. Annual report 2019 [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.glaid.dk/pdf/GLAD%20annual%20report%202019%20eng%20final_2.pdf
  26. 26.↵
    Lawford BJ, Hinman RS, Nelligan RK, Keefe F, Rini C, Bennell KL. “I could do it in my own time and when I really needed it”: perceptions of online pain coping skills training for people with knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res [Internet]. 2019 Oct 18 [cited 2020 Nov 19]; Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/acr.24093
  27. 27.
    Hunter DJ, March L, Chew M. Osteoarthritis in 2020 and beyond: a Lancet Commission. The Lancet [Internet]. 2020 Nov [cited 2020 Nov 6]; Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673620322303
  28. 28.
    Luong M-LN, Cleveland RJ, Nyrop KA, Callahan LF. Social determinants and osteoarthritis outcomes. Aging Health. 2012 Aug;8(4):413–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Ackerman IN, Livingston JA, Osborne RH. Personal Perspectives on Enablers and Barriers to Accessing Care for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis. Phys Ther. 2016 Jan 1;96(1):26–36.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    Juhl C, Christensen R, Roos EM, Zhang W, Lund H. Impact of Exercise Type and Dose on Pain and Disability in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Impact of Exercise Type and Dose in Knee Osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Mar;66(3):622–36.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Øiestad BE, Juhl CB, Eitzen I, Thorlund JB. Knee extensor muscle weakness is a risk factor for development of knee osteoarthritis. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015 Feb;23(2):171–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Culvenor AG, Ruhdorfer A, Juhl C, Eckstein F, Øiestad BE. Knee Extensor Strength and Risk of Structural, Symptomatic, and Functional Decline in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Risk of Deterioration in Knee OA and Knee Extensor Strength. Arthritis Care Res. 2017 May;69(5):649–58.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Ratamess NA, Alvar BA, Evetoch TK, Housh TJ, Kibler WB, Kraemer WJ, et al. Progression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Mar;41(3):687–708.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, Ball SD. A Meta-analysis to Determine the Dose Response for Strength Development. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Mar;35(3):456–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    Husted RS, Troelsen A, Thorborg K, Rathleff MS, Husted H, Bandholm T. Efficacy of pre-operative quadriceps strength training on knee-extensor strength before and shortly following total knee arthroplasty: protocol for a randomized, dose-response trial (The QUADX-1 trial). Trials. 2018 Dec;19(1):47.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Riis A, Rathleff MS, Jensen MB, Simonsen O. Low grading of the severity of knee osteoarthritis pre-operatively is associated with a lower functional level after total knee replacement: a prospective cohort study with 12 months’ follow-up. Bone Jt J. 2014 Nov;96-B(11):1498–502.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, Rathleff MS, Arendt-Nielsen L, Simonsen O, et al. Criteria used when deciding on eligibility for total knee arthroplasty--Between thinking and doing. The Knee. 2016 Mar;23(2):300–5.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    American Society of Anesthesiologists. ASA Physical Status Classification System. American Society of Anesthesiologists; 2014.
  39. 39.↵
    Sundhedsstyrelsen, Statens Serum Institut. Alkoholstatistik 2015. Nationale data. 2015.
  40. 40.↵
    Gagnon D, Nadeau S, Gravel D, Robert J, Bélanger D, Hilsenrath M. Reliability and validity of static knee strength measurements obtained with a chair-fixed dynamometer in subjects with hip or knee arthroplasty. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Oct;86(10):1998–2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Rathleff MS, Bandholm T, Ahrendt P, Olesen JL, Thorborg K. Novel stretch-sensor technology allows quantification of adherence and quality of home-exercises: a validation study. Br J Sports Med. 2014 Apr;48(8):724–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.
    Rathleff MS, Thorborg K, Rode LA, McGirr KA, Sørensen AS, Bøgild A, et al. Adherence to commonly prescribed, home-based strength training exercises for the lower extremity can be objectively monitored using the Bandcizer. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(3):627–636.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    Riel H, Matthews M, Vicenzino B, Bandholm T, Thorborg K, Rathleff MS. Feedback Leads to Better Exercise Quality in Adolescents with Patellofemoral Pain: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 Jan;50(1):28–35.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Bennell KL, Kyriakides M, Metcalf B, Egerton T, Wrigley TV, Hodges PW, et al. Neuromuscular Versus Quadriceps Strengthening Exercise in Patients With Medial Knee Osteoarthritis and Varus Malalignment: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Neuromuscular Exercise and Knee Adduction Moment. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Apr;66(4):950–9.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Messier SP, Mihalko SL, Beavers DP, Nicklas BJ, DeVita P, Carr JJ, et al. Effect of High-Intensity Strength Training on Knee Pain and Knee Joint Compressive Forces Among Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: The START Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021 Feb 16;325(7):646.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, Rathleff MS, Arendt-Nielsen L, Simonsen O, et al. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Total Knee Replacement. N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22;373(17):1597–606.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    Rice DA, McNair PJ. Quadriceps Arthrogenic Muscle Inhibition: Neural Mechanisms and Treatment Perspectives. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2010 Dec;40(3):250–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Regnaux J-P, Lefevre-Colau M-M, Trinquart L, Nguyen C, Boutron I, Brosseau L, et al. High-intensity versus low-intensity physical activity or exercise in people with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Oct 29;29(10):CD010203.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Husted RS, Juhl C, Troelsen A, Thorborg K, Kallemose T, Rathleff MS, et al. The relationship between prescribed pre-operative knee-extensor exercise dosage and effect on knee-extensor strength prior to and following total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomized controlled trials. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2020 Sep;(28):1412–26.
  50. 50.↵
    Bandak E, Christensen R, Overgaard A, Kristensen LE, Ellegaard K, Guldberg-Møller J, et al. Exercise and education versus saline injections for knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Nov 29;annrheumdis-2021-221129.
  51. 51.↵
    Borde R, Hortobágyi T, Granacher U. Dose–Response Relationships of Resistance Training in Healthy Old Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2015 Dec;45(12):1693–720.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    Bartholdy C, Juhl C, Christensen R, Lund H, Zhang W, Henriksen M. The role of muscle strengthening in exercise therapy for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomized trials. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2017 Mar;47(1):9–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.↵
    Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;8.
  54. 54.↵
    Harris KK, Dawson J, Jones LD, Beard DJ, Price AJ. Extending the use of PROMs in the NHS—using the Oxford Knee Score in patients undergoing non-operative management for knee osteoarthritis: a validation study. BMJ Open. 2013 Aug;3(8):e003365.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    Perera S, Mody SH, Woodman RC, Studenski SA. Meaningful Change and Responsiveness in Common Physical Performance Measures in Older Adults: MEANINGFUL CHANGE AND PERFORMANCE. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 May;54(5):743–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. 56.↵
    Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA, Ciapetti A, Grassi W. Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain. 2004 Aug;8(4):283–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. 57.↵
    Almeida GJ, Schroeder CA, Gil AB, Fitzgerald GK, Piva SR. Interrater Reliability and Validity of the Stair Ascend/Descend Test in Subjects With Total Knee Arthroplasty. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Jun;91(6):932–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    Hafliðadóttir SH, Juhl CB, Nielsen SM, Henriksen M, Harris IA, Bliddal H, et al. Placebo response and effect in randomized clinical trials: meta-research with focus on contextual effects. Trials. 2021 Dec;22(1):493.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Zhang W, Robertson J, Jones AC, Dieppe PA, Doherty M. The placebo effect and its determinants in osteoarthritis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008 Dec 1;67(12):1716.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    Rossettini G, Carlino E, Testa M. Clinical relevance of contextual factors as triggers of placebo and nocebo effects in musculoskeletal pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Dec;19(1):27.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    Englund M. Bout of the corner men and not the boxers? Contextual effects flex their muscles. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Feb;77(2):159–61.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  62. 62.↵
    Blasini M, Peiris N, Wright T, Colloca L. The Role of Patient–Practitioner Relationships in Placebo and Nocebo Phenomena. In: International Review of Neurobiology [Internet]. Elsevier; 2018 [cited 2020 Dec 17]. p. 211–31. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S007477421830062X
  63. 63.
    Miller FG, Colloca L, Kaptchuk TJ. The Placebo Effect: Illness and Interpersonal Healing. Perspect Biol Med. 2009;52(4):518–39.
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.↵
    Hardman DI, Geraghty AW, Howick J, Roberts N, Bishop FL. A discursive exploration of public perspectives on placebos and their effects. Health Psychol Open. 2019 Jan;6(1):205510291983231.
  65. 65.↵
    Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Gandek B, Rogers WH, Ware JE. Characteristics of Physicians with Participatory Decision-Making Styles. Ann Intern Med. 1996 Mar 1;124(5):497.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  66. 66.
    Frosch DL, Kaplan RM. Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. Am J Prev Med. 1999 Nov;17(4):285–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. 67.
    Epstein RM, Alper BS, Quill TE. Communicating Evidence for Participatory Decision Making. JAMA. 2004;May 19(291):8.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    Miller FG, Kaptchuk TJ. The power of context: reconceptualizing the placebo effect. J R Soc Med. 2008 May;101(5):222–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  69. 69.↵
    Ljungqvist O, Hubner M. Enhanced recovery after surgery—ERAS—principles, practice and feasibility in the elderly. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2018 Mar;30(3):249–52.
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.
    Bardram L, Funch-Jensen P, Jensen P, Crawford ME, Kehlet H. Recovery after laparoscopic colonic surgery with epidural analgesia, and early oral nutrition and mobilisation. The Lancet. 1995 Mar;345(8952):763–4.
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.
    Wainwright TW, Gill M, McDonald DA, Middleton RG, Reed M, Sahota O, et al. Consensus statement for perioperative care in total hip replacement and total knee replacement surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS ®) Society recommendations. Acta Orthop. 2019 Oct 30;1–17.
  72. 72.
    Gao K, Yu P, Su J, He C, Liu L, Zhou Y, et al. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing screening and pre-operative pulmonary rehabilitation reduce postoperative complications and improve fast-track recovery after lung cancer surgery: A study for 342 cases: CPET and rehabilitation of lung surgery. Thorac Cancer. 2015 Jul;6(4):443–9.
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.↵
    Pouwels S, Willigendael EM, van Sambeek MRHM, Nienhuijs SW, Cuypers PWM, Teijink JAW. Beneficial Effects of Pre-operative Exercise Therapy in Patients with an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015 Jan;49(1):66–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    Moyer R, Ikert K, Long K, Marsh J. The Value of Preoperative Exercise and Education for Patients Undergoing Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JBJS Rev. 2017 Dec;5(12):e2.
    OpenUrl
  75. 75.
    Wang L, Lee M, Zhang Z, Moodie J, Cheng D, Martin J. Does preoperative rehabilitation for patients planning to undergo joint replacement surgery improve outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2):e009857.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.
    Ma J, Zhang L, Kuang M, Zhao J, Wang Y, Lu B, et al. The effect of preoperative training on functional recovery in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg [Internet]. 2018 Jan [cited 2018 Feb 16]; Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S174391911830493X
  77. 77.
    Ackerman I, Bennell K. Does pre-operative physiotherapy improve outcomes from lower limb joint replacement surgery? A systematic review. Aust J Physiother. 2004;50(1):25–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  78. 78.
    Chesham RA, Shanmugam S. Does preoperative physiotherapy improve postoperative, patient-based outcomes in older adults who have undergone total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review. Physiother Theory Pract. 2016 Oct 13;33(1):9–30.
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.
    Skoffer B, Dalgas U, Mechlenburg I. Progressive resistance training before and after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2015;Jan 29(1):14–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.
    Jordan RW, Smith NA, Chahal GS, Casson C, Reed MR, Sprowson AP. Enhanced education and physiotherapy before knee replacement; is it worth it? A systematic review. Physiotherapy. 2014 Dec;100(4):305–12.
    OpenUrl
  81. 81.
    Kwok IHY, Paton B, Haddad FS. Does Pre-Operative Physiotherapy Improve Outcomes in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty? — A Systematic Review. J Arthroplasty. 2015 Sep;30(9):1657–63.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  82. 82.
    Wallis JA, Taylor NF. Pre-operative interventions (non-surgical and non-pharmacological) for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis awaiting joint replacement surgery – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011 Dec;19(12):1381–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  83. 83.↵
    Gawel JA, Brown SE, Collins JC, McCallum C. Does pre-operative physical therapy improve post-surgical outcomes of patients undergoing a total knee and/or total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review. Physiother Pract Res. 2013;(1):9–20.
  84. 84.↵
    Skou ST, Roos E, Laursen M, Arendt L, Rasmussen S, Simonsen O, et al. Cost-e-ffectiveness of total knee replacement in addition to non-s-urgical treatment: a 2--year outcome from a randomised trial in secondary care in Denmark. BMJ Open. 2020;11.
  85. 85.↵
    Spencer EA, Mahtani K. Catalogue of Bias Collaboration. Hawthorne effect. In Catalog of Bias. [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://catalogofbias.org/biases/hawthorne-effect/
  86. 86.↵
    Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg. 2012;10(1):28–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted February 26, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Knee-extensor strength, symptoms, and need for surgery after two, four, or six exercise sessions/week using a home-based one-exercise program: A randomized dose-response trial of knee-extensor resistance exercise in patients eligible for knee replacement (the QUADX-1 trial)
Rasmus Skov Husted, Anders Troelsen, Henrik Husted, Birk Mygind Grønfeldt, Kristian Thorborg, Thomas Kallemose, Michael Skovdal Rathleff, Thomas Bandholm
medRxiv 2021.04.07.21254965; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.07.21254965
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area