Ryan C Kruse, Kristina D Rossmiller, Timothy R Fleagle
{"title":"Postprocedure protocols after intraarticular orthobiologic injections-A scoping review.","authors":"Ryan C Kruse, Kristina D Rossmiller, Timothy R Fleagle","doi":"10.1002/pmrj.13271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Osteoarthritis is a chronic degenerative disease affecting 500 million people throughout the world. Although orthobiologics have been proposed as a symptom and disease modifying treatment for osteoarthritis, there is significant heterogeneity in the results of the orthobiologic procedures in the literature. One possible explanation for the heterogeneity is the inconsistent reporting and description of the postorthobiologic protocols. The goal of this scoping review was to identify the current literature on the use of orthobiologics for osteoarthritis and critically evaluate the postorthobiologic protocol within these studies. A total of 200 identified studies met inclusion criteria. In 37.5% of studies, there was no mention of a postorthobiologic protocol. Of the 125 studies that did mention a postorthobiologic protocol, only 38.4% included a rehabilitation protocol, 21.6% included postprocedure weightbearing restrictions, and only 2 (1.6%) mentioned the use of durable medical equipment. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug restriction was described in 91.2% of study protocols, whereas corticosteroids and immunosuppressants were restricted in 84.8% and 19.2% of protocols, respectively. The results of this scoping review demonstrate the inconsistent reporting of postorthobiologic procedure protocols in the literature, with significant heterogeneity in those that are described. These findings highlight the need for future research and improved reporting of postorthobiologic protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":20354,"journal":{"name":"PM&R","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PM&R","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13271","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Osteoarthritis is a chronic degenerative disease affecting 500 million people throughout the world. Although orthobiologics have been proposed as a symptom and disease modifying treatment for osteoarthritis, there is significant heterogeneity in the results of the orthobiologic procedures in the literature. One possible explanation for the heterogeneity is the inconsistent reporting and description of the postorthobiologic protocols. The goal of this scoping review was to identify the current literature on the use of orthobiologics for osteoarthritis and critically evaluate the postorthobiologic protocol within these studies. A total of 200 identified studies met inclusion criteria. In 37.5% of studies, there was no mention of a postorthobiologic protocol. Of the 125 studies that did mention a postorthobiologic protocol, only 38.4% included a rehabilitation protocol, 21.6% included postprocedure weightbearing restrictions, and only 2 (1.6%) mentioned the use of durable medical equipment. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug restriction was described in 91.2% of study protocols, whereas corticosteroids and immunosuppressants were restricted in 84.8% and 19.2% of protocols, respectively. The results of this scoping review demonstrate the inconsistent reporting of postorthobiologic procedure protocols in the literature, with significant heterogeneity in those that are described. These findings highlight the need for future research and improved reporting of postorthobiologic protocols.
期刊介绍:
Topics covered include acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders and pain, neurologic conditions involving the central and peripheral nervous systems, rehabilitation of impairments associated with disabilities in adults and children, and neurophysiology and electrodiagnosis. PM&R emphasizes principles of injury, function, and rehabilitation, and is designed to be relevant to practitioners and researchers in a variety of medical and surgical specialties and rehabilitation disciplines including allied health.