4.0 Article

Hospital-based versus home-based proprioceptive and strengthening exercise programs in knee osteoarthritis

Journal

ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA ET TRAUMATOLOGICA TURCICA
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 270-277

Publisher

TURKISH ASSOC ORTHOPAEDICS TRAUMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.3944/AOTT.2010.2306

Keywords

Exercise; knee; osteoarthritis; pain; proprioception, strength

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: This study aimed to establish the effects of hospital- and home-based proprioceptive and strengthening exercise programs on proprioception, pain, and functional status in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Sixty patients with bilateral knee OA were randomly allocated into either a home-based or hospital-based exercise program. Hospital-based exercise group (n=30, mean age 50.23 +/- 9.07 years) received functional training program with proprioceptive ability, ice, and home exercises. Home-based exercise group (n=30, mean age 54.4 +/- 7.9 years) had a program of ice and home exercises. Treatment programs was conducted 5 days per week for 6 weeks (30 sessions). Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Monitorized Functional Squat System-Proprioceptive Test (MFSS), timed performance test (TUG), and visual analogue scale (VAS) for the intensity of pain were used to quantify the variables. Results: Both groups demonstrated significant improvement when pre- and post-treatment results were compared for pain intensity, WOMAC, and TUG test scores (p<0.05). No statistically significant improvement was found in proprioception of the home-based group (p>0.05). Hospital-based group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in MFSS, TUG test, and VAS in activity when compared with the home-based group (p<0.05). Conclusion: Both hospital- and home-based exercise programs decreased joint symptoms and improved function in patients with knee OA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available