Postprocedure protocols after intraarticular orthobiologic injections-A scoping review.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION PM&R Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1002/pmrj.13271
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关节内生物正骨注射后的术后规程--范围综述。
骨关节炎是一种慢性退行性疾病,影响着全世界 5 亿人。尽管骨生物制品已被提出作为骨关节炎的一种症状和疾病调节治疗方法,但文献中的骨生物制品治疗结果存在显著的异质性。造成这种异质性的一个可能原因是对矫形生物学术后方案的报告和描述不一致。本次范围界定综述的目的是确定目前使用骨生物制品治疗骨关节炎的文献,并对这些研究中的骨生物制品术后方案进行批判性评估。共有 200 项研究符合纳入标准。37.5%的研究未提及生物治疗后方案。在提及术后方案的 125 项研究中,只有 38.4% 的研究包含康复方案,21.6% 的研究包含术后负重限制,只有 2 项研究(1.6%)提及耐用医疗设备的使用。91.2%的研究方案对非甾体类抗炎药进行了限制,而皮质类固醇和免疫抑制剂分别在84.8%和19.2%的方案中进行了限制。此次范围界定审查的结果表明,文献中对生物学术后方案的报道并不一致,而且所描述的方案也存在显著的异质性。这些发现凸显了未来研究和改进生物学术后方案报告的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PM&R
PM&R REHABILITATION-SPORT SCIENCES
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
187
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Percutaneous ultrasound-guided A1 pulley release utilizing a modified 20-gauge spinal needle. Self-perceived preparedness for practice among graduating physical medicine & rehabilitation residents. Knee joint mechanics during gait after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a partial or full thickness quadriceps tendon autograft at 2 years after surgery. Test Smart, Treat Smart-using clinician feedback to adapt a catheter-associated urinary tract infection intervention for spinal cord injury. Racial disparities in prosthesis use, satisfaction, and physical function in upper limb amputation and the impact of veteran status.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1