ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 320

Effectiveness of Bracing in Elderly with Knee Osteoartritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Christine Brumini Sr.1, Jamil Natour2, Lais Yumi Miura1 and Anamaria Martinez2, 1Rheumatology, University Federal of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 2Rheumatology Division, Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Meeting: 2015 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 29, 2015

Keywords: Elderly, orthotics and osteoarthritis

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Sunday, November 8, 2015

Title: Osteoarthritis - Clinical Aspects Poster I: Treatments and Metabolic Risk Factors

Session Type: ACR Poster Session A

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Osteoarthritis (OA) is highly prevalent in the elderly, with the knee being the most commonly affected joint in this population. Knee braces are often used to prevent common problems in knees during daily activities. The purpose of these devices is to decrease pain and improve functionality. In the literature some studies have tested the effectiveness of unloader brace for valgus or varus. However, the braces most used in our clinical setting and the less costly ones have not been evaluated in quality studies in the literature. There are no studies that compared the effectiveness between the knee brace with metal hinges (no alignment) and knee brace without metal hinges (neoprene sleeve). The purpose is to evaluate the effectiveness of knee braces on pain, function and quality of life in the elderly with knee OA.

Methods: Elderly with knee OA, both genders, with pain scale between 3-7cm on a 10cm pain numeric scale were included. Of the 222 patients screened, 120 met the eligibility criteria and were randomized to the groups: neoprene sleeve (without metal hinges); brace (with metal hinges – no alignment) or control group (CG). The groups neoprene sleeve (NSG) and brace (BG) received knee brace and were instructed to use it in daily activities, every day, during three months. Assessment for pain (NPS), function (WOMAC and Knee Lequesne), quality of life (SF-36) and performance tests (6MWT, TUGT and FTSS) were done at baseline and after 45, 90 and 180 days by a blinded assessor.

Results: Forty patients were randomly assigned to the each group. At baseline the groups were homogeneous for all measures, except for gender where the CG had more women and the pain domain of SF-36 where pain was higher in the CG. The analysis between the groups using ANOVA for repeated measures for pain (NPS), show statistically significant difference between groups over time (p=0,049), with the BG showing better results. Statistically significant differences were found between groups over time for: function – WOMAC questionnaire (global, p=0,005; pain, p=0,004 and function, p<0,001) and Knee Lequesne (p= 0,009) and quality of life – functional capacity domain the SF-36 (0,046) with better results to BG.

Conclusion: The knee brace was effective in improving pain, function and some aspects of quality of life in elderly with knee OA.

Table 1 – Between-groups comparison

T0

T45

T90

T180

p

GC

GSH

GCH

GC

GSH

GCH

GC

GSH

GCH

GC

GSH

GCH

ANOVA

NPS

6.0 ± 1.1

6.0 ± 1.4

6.1 ± 1.1

5.9 ± 2.1

5.2 ± 2.1

5.0 ± 2.3

5.4 ± 1.8

4.8 ± 1.8

4.6 ± 2.0

5.9±1.6

5.4±1.8

4.3±2.3

0.049*

WOMAC

Global

42.6 ± 17.5

42.1 ± 16.7

40.5 ± 17.4

48.2 ± 16.7

36.1 ± 16.2

34.0 ± 17.6

44.3 ± 17.8

36.5 ± 19.1

29.1 ± 17.2

45.1±18.4

34.9±19.3

29.9±18.7

0.005*

Pain

8.0 ± 4.2

8.5 ± 4.0

7.4 ± 3.6

9.4 ± 3.7

6.4 ± 3.7

5.5 ± 3.7

8.0 ± 3.8

6.7 ± 4.2

4.8 ± 3.9

8.1±4.2

5.8±3.6

5.2±4.0

0.004*

Stiffness

2.6 ± 2.5

2.8 ± 2.0

2.4 ± 2.2

2.8 ± 2.4

2.3 ± 1.9

1.8 ± 2.2

2.9 ± 2.0

2.7 ± 2.4

1.8 ± 1.9

2.7±2.4

2.2±2.1

1.8±2.1

0.408

Function

32.0 ± 12.4

30.8 ± 12.0

31.0 ± 13.1

35.4 ± 12.2

27.4 ± 12.0

26.8 ± 12.9

33.5 ± 14.4

27.3 ± 14.3

22.5 ± 12.3

33.4±12.7

26.7±14.6

23.0±13.9

<0.001*

Lequesne

13.4 ± 3.3

13.0 ± 3.2

12.4 ± 3.0

14.3 ± 3.0

12.2 ± 3.4

11.8 ± 3.4

14.0 ± 3.3

12.1 ± 3.3

11.5 ± 3.8

14.3±3.2

12.4±3.4

10.7±4.2

0.009*

SF-36

Physical functioning

21.6 ± 15.6

22.5 ± 14.3

27.0 ± 19.5

19.4 ± 17.3

29.6 ± 21.1

29.9 ± 20.8

22.3 ± 20.0

29.4 ± 19.1

37.1 ± 22.1

25.3±19.1

32.8±20.0

37.1±25.2

0.049*

Role physical

43.1 ± 45.6

39.4 ± 42.7

43.1 ± 47.0

38.1 ± 47.0

55.0 ± 47.4

41.9 ± 46.1

30.6 ± 41.8

47.5 ± 44.9

49.4 ± 49.2

30.8±45.1

39.4±46.3

53.5±48.3

0.104

Bodily pain

34.7± 13.6

45.7 ± 22.7

49.5 ± 18.6

38.3 ± 16.1

44.3 ± 17.4

51.5 ± 23.6

37.7 ± 15.1

47.6 ± 19.0

55.8 ± 22.1

40.1±14.7

49.8±22.7

53.9±19.7

0.760

General health

58.8 ± 19.4

59.0 ± 23.3

63.4 ± 17.7

56.1 ± 21.6

59.9 ± 24.6

65.0 ± 17.3

52.6 ± 21.8

62.2 ± 23.9

69.3 ± 19.0

56.8±20.9

61.7±25.0

66.4±18.7

0.185

Vitality

50.4 ± 19.3

57.4 ± 18.3

51.4 ± 20.3

48.3 ± 21.3

58.2 ± 19.4

54.8 ± 19.4

44.3 ± 21.7

54.4 ± 15.9

58.1 ± 21.7

44.8±20.8

58.6±19.0

55.6±23.7

0.071

Social functioning

68.1 ± 22.8

72.8 ± 30.5

73.1 ± 26.6

65.9 ± 23.0

77.8 ± 23.9

80.0 ± 23.3

64.7 ± 25.3

75.9 ± 26.3

80.6 ± 20.8

65.3±27.2

79.0±23.7

80.9±25.0

0.269

Role emotional

48.3 ± 50.0

36.7 ± 47.0

59.2 ± 49.2

40.8 ± 47.4

57.5 ± 48.3

59.2 ± 47.4

43.3 ± 49.6

55.0 ± 48.7

55.0 ± 50.4

48.8±47.7

63.3±47.0

62.4±47.3

0.094

Mental health

59.5 ± 20.4

65.1 ± 22.2

68.2 ± 18.3

58.3 ± 19.4

69.0 ± 17.7

67.5 ± 22.4

54.6 ± 22.7

66.2 ± 21.5

69.2 ± 22.6

55.1±25.1

68.5±18.4

67.1±22.4

0.137

TUGT

14.3 ± 3.5

14.1 ± 4.2

13.5 ± 3.2

15.0 ± 6.2

13.4 ± 4.9

12.6 ± 2.8

13.9 ± 3.9

13.1 ± 4.5

12.4 ± 2.9

14.1±4.8

12.6±4.0

12.4±3.6

0.515

6MWT

311.2 ± 87.6

324.1 ± 97.2

343.6 ± 72.8

305.4 ± 78.9

338.9 ± 77.3

356.5 ± 72.9

298.1 ± 80.4

327.4 ± 68.0

362.8 ± 88.0

291.8±79.7

335.1 ±72.6

361.1±8.5

0.155

FTSS

22.7 ± 6.9

22.7 ± 7.0

21.7 ± 8.3

25.2 ± 12.4

21.3 ± 7.1

20.1 ± 8.2

24.4 ± 9.5

21.8 ± 7.7

20.1 ± 7.5

24.1±9.0

20.7±7.3

20.2±6.2

0.086

ANOVA= analysis of variance for repeated measures; CG= control group; NSG= neoprene sleeve group; BG= brace group; T0= baseline; T45= evaluation after 45 days; T90= evaluation after 90 days; T180= evaluation after

180 days; NPS= numerical pain scale; WOMAC= Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; Lequesne= Lequesne´s algofuncional questionnaire; SF-36= Short-form-36; TUGT= timed up and go test;

6MWT= 6-minutes walk test; FTSS= five times sit to stand.*Statistically significant p value (<0,05).


Disclosure: C. Brumini Sr., None; J. Natour, None; L. Y. Miura, None; A. Martinez, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Brumini C Sr., Natour J, Miura LY, Martinez A. Effectiveness of Bracing in Elderly with Knee Osteoartritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015; 67 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/effectiveness-of-bracing-in-elderly-with-knee-osteoartritis-a-randomized-controlled-trial/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2015 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/effectiveness-of-bracing-in-elderly-with-knee-osteoartritis-a-randomized-controlled-trial/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology