de Jong Lex D, van der Zwaard Babette C, van Blommestein Matthijs Y H, van Loon Corné J M
Department of Orthopaedics, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Department of Orthopaedics, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2025 Sep 4;20(9):e0330157. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330157. eCollection 2025.
Patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA) may benefit from wearing a valgus brace, but previous studies lacked consideration for brace wearing time, co-interventions and the brace users' perceptions. This mixed-method randomised controlled trial investigated the effectiveness of a valgus brace on knee pain and activity limitations alongside exploring user perceptions.
Participants randomised to the intervention group (n = 23) received regular care and a customisable valgus brace for 6 months while the participants randomised to the waitlist control group (n = 23) were allowed any regular care treatment except for a knee brace. Outcomes were evaluated with a multilevel linear regression analysis at baseline, 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. The primary outcome was knee pain intensity at 6 months measured by a 10-cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included walking distance, generic health status, knee functioning and satisfaction with the brace. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a subsample of intervention group participants and transcripts were analysed using deductive thematic analysis.
After 6 months, only a statistically significant and clinically important difference of 2.13 cm (95% CI -3.57 to -0.69) on the VAS score for knee pain intensity after a walk test was found between the intervention and control groups. Although the qualitative findings echoed some participants' negative or mixed feelings about the brace, several participants perceived positive changes in pain, other body functions, during activities and had positive user experiences.
Using a valgus brace decreased knee pain intensity during walking activities. Although other outcomes showed limited effectiveness, the study's underpowered nature increased the risk of type II errors. Qualitative data highlighted positive user experiences, suggesting potential benefits beyond the measured quantitative outcomes.
内侧间室膝关节骨关节炎(OA)患者佩戴外翻支具可能有益,但以往研究未考虑支具佩戴时间、联合干预措施以及支具使用者的感受。这项混合方法随机对照试验研究了外翻支具对膝关节疼痛和活动受限的有效性,并探讨了使用者的感受。
随机分配至干预组(n = 23)的参与者接受常规护理,并佩戴定制的外翻支具6个月,而随机分配至等待名单对照组(n = 23)的参与者除膝关节支具外可接受任何常规护理治疗。在基线、2周、3个月和6个月时,采用多水平线性回归分析评估结果。主要结局是6个月时用10厘米视觉模拟量表(VAS)测量的膝关节疼痛强度。次要结局包括步行距离、一般健康状况、膝关节功能以及对支具的满意度。对干预组参与者的一个子样本进行了定性访谈,并使用演绎主题分析法对访谈记录进行了分析。
6个月后,干预组和对照组之间在步行试验后膝关节疼痛强度的VAS评分上仅发现了2.13厘米(95%CI -3.57至-0.69)的统计学显著且具有临床意义的差异。尽管定性研究结果反映了一些参与者对支具的负面或复杂感受,但也有几位参与者感觉到在疼痛、其他身体功能、活动过程中出现了积极变化,并且有积极的用户体验。
使用外翻支具可降低步行活动期间的膝关节疼痛强度。尽管其他结局显示效果有限,但该研究的效能不足增加了II类错误的风险。定性数据突出了积极的用户体验,表明除了所测量的定量结果之外还可能存在潜在益处。