Prothèses Totale de Genou en France : une croissance portée par les Hommes entre 2009 et 2019. Projections à 2050

Stum, Mathieu Le; Gicquel, Thomas; Dardenne, Guillaume; Goff-Pronost, Myriam Le; Stindel, Éric; Clavé, Arnaud

doi:10.1016/j.rcot.2022.10.014

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Shichman et al [4] contend that this is now the most common orthopedic surgery done in the US. The majority of these TKA procedures are done in women, with a male-to-female ratio of 0.64 in 2019 [5]. Despite the excellent functional outcomes in the short and medium term, better quality of life [1,2,6], and a high level of satisfaction, the postoperative period following TKA is key.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized controlled trial of compressive cryotherapy versus standard cryotherapy after total knee arthroplasty: pain, swelling, range of motion and functional recovery

Quesnot,

Mouchel,

Salah

et al. 2024

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background After total knee arthroplasty (TKA), patients have limited knee range of motion (ROM), trophic changes and pain. Cryotherapy and compression are recommended in the literature, but no study has shown that cryotherapy and compression combined leads to better results than cryotherapy alone. The primary objective was to compare knee ROM after 21 days of rehabilitation post-TKA between patients who underwent rehabilitation with compressive cryotherapy with those who had cryotherapy alone. The secondary objectives were to compare other trophic, pain and functional outcomes. Methods Forty patients were randomized into two groups: Standard Cryotherapy (SC = 20, median age 77 years), which applied cold packs along with their rehabilitation; and Compressive Cryotherapy (CC = 20, median age 76 years), which received cold compression. Knee joint’s passive and active ROM (primary outcome) were measured with a goniometer. Knee’s circumference, fluctuation test, pain at rest and during activity, 6-minute walking test (6MWT) and KOOS questionnaire were secondary outcomes. The groups were compared on D1 (baseline) and D21 of rehabilitation. A survival analysis has compared the groups on D1, D8, D15, D21. Results All subjects had a significant improvement in all the parameters on D21 relative to D1 (p < .05), except for pain at rest (p = .065 for CC and p = .052 for SC). On D21, the CC group had a significantly larger improvement in the joint effusion (p = .002), pain during activity (p = .005), 6MWT (p = .018) and KOOS (p = .004) than the SC group. Based on the survival analysis, the CC group had significantly faster improvement in the joint ROM (p = .011 for flexion and p = .038 for extension) and knee circumference (p = .013) than the SC group. Conclusions Both cryotherapy methods improved joint ROM, trophic changes, pain and function. Adding dynamic compression to a cryotherapy protocol provided further benefits: a significantly faster improvement in passive knee flexion ROM, a greater reduction of swelling, and pain during activity. Similarly, walking distance and KOOS questionnaire were significantly better for CC. Trials registration The study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database on 14/09/2023 (identifier: NCT06037824).

show abstract