Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Skip to main content
null
J Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation
  • Menu
  • Articles
    • Brief Report
    • Case Report
    • Data Paper
    • Editorial
    • Hand
    • Meeting Reports/Abstracts
    • Methods Article
    • Product Review
    • Research Article
    • Review Article
    • Review Articles
    • Systematic Review
    • All
  • For Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • About
  • Issues
  • Blog
  • "Open Mic" Topic Sessions
  • Advertisers
  • Recorded Content
  • CME
  • JOEI KOL Connect
  • search

RSS Feed

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

https://journaloei.scholasticahq.com/feed
Review Article
Vol. 3, Issue 1, 2022March 09, 2022 EDT

Summary of outcomes of a non-invasive biomechanical therapy for patients with knee osteoarthritis

Matthew Bartels, MD, MPH, Michael Suk, MD, JD, MPH, MBA,
Knee OABiomechanicsPainFunctionNon-operative interventions
Copyright Logoccby-nc-nd-4.0 • https://doi.org/10.60118/001c.32561
J Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation
Bartels, Matthew, and Michael Suk. 2022. “Summary of Outcomes of a Non-Invasive Biomechanical Therapy for Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis.” Journal of Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation 3 (1). https:/​/​doi.org/​10.60118/​001c.32561.
Save article as...▾
Download all (4)
  • Figure 1. Knee adduction moment
    Download
  • Figure 2. The biomechanical device
    Download
  • Supplement: A link to a YouTube video of the before & after effect.
    Download
  • Figure 3. Mechanism of action
    Download

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

If this problem reoccurs, please contact Scholastica Support

Error message:

undefined

View more stats

Abstract

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the second most frequent chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) condition after low back pain and a leading cause of disability in the elderly. The number of people living with disability will continue to rise with the aging of the population. Moreover, the rapid increase in rates of surgical intervention, i.e. Total knee replacement (TKR) and revision TKRs, is expected to place an immense burden on the health care system and society. There is a call for better rehabilitation, new interventions, and disease management for patients with knee OA. The purpose of this article is to review the biomechanics of knee OA and biomechanical interventions and to summarize the current literature on a non-invasive, home-based biomechanical treatment for patients with knee OA. The evidence suggests an improvement in symptoms and biomechanical indicators after using the home-based biomechanical intervention. In the presence of value-based payment to improve efficiency and effectiveness in delivering medical care, these results are promising.

Introduction

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the second most frequent chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) condition after low back pain and a leading cause of disability in the elderly (Storheim and Zwart 2014; Endstrasser et al. 2020). The incidence of knee OA is rapidly increasing due to global demographical changes, mainly an aging population from increased life expectancy and the growing prevalence of obesity. It is estimated that by 2050, 130 million people will suffer from OA worldwide, of whom the disease will severely disable 40 million (Wittenauer, Smith, and Aden 2013), leading to a gradual increase in burden for society.

Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common solution for patients with end-stage knee OA. Over the years there has been an increase in the demand for TKRs attributed to an increase in life expectancies and a decline in the average age of surgical candidates. More recently, an inactive lifestyle exacerbated with COVID-19 can potentially put more patients at risk for TKR (Endstrasser et al. 2020). For the above reasons, the burden of knee OA on society is on the rise (Klug et al. 2020). Existing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for OA remain insufficient. These include physical therapy, biomechanical interventions, oral medications, and injections (McAlindon et al. 2014). There is an urgent need for new non-invasive interventions to effectively treat knee OA and serve as an alternative to surgical intervention.

In this review we will focus on the biomechanical aspects of knee OA and the use of biomechanical interventions to treat knee OA. In addition, we will summarize the scientific evidence of a non-invasive biomechanical intervention that aims to reduce pain and improve function by shifting loads and training neuromuscular control.

Biomechanics of knee OA and biomechanical interventions

Biomechanics plays an essential role in knee OA. Understanding knee biomechanics is a prerequisite for designing biomechanical knee assistive devices and optimizing rehabilitation exercises for patients with knee OA (Egloff, Hügle, and Valderrabano 2012; Zhang et al. 2020). A typical healthy knee is exposed to 3-dimensional loads (Figure 1). These include the knee adduction moment (KAM), the knee flexion moment (KFM), and the knee external rotation moment (KERM) (Al-Zahrani and Bakheit 2002; Kaufman et al. 2001; Mündermann, Dyrby, and Andriacchi 2005; Gök, Ergin, and Yavuzer 2002). Knee OA is a degenerative “wear-and-tear” disease that occurs most often in people ≥ 50 years of age and affects the biomechanics of the knee joint. The KAM, a primary biomechanical indicator for knee OA, is commonly used to assess disease severity, progression, prognosis and even predict the likelihood of developing future chronic pain in an asymptomatic population. It also correlates with early signs of knee OA, joint space narrowing, medial joint capsule loosening, and symptoms (i.e., pain and functional disability) (Sharma et al. 1998; Amin et al. 2004; Teichtahl et al. 2006; Hurwitz et al. 2002). Wear-and-tear processes also occur to the dynamic stabilizers of the knee, expressed by a deterioration of the neuromuscular control. Patients with knee OA have deteriorated muscle function, including decreased muscle strength and compromised synergy (Messier et al. 1992; Lewek, Rudolph, and Snyder-Mackler 2004). The biomechanical changes justify the use of biomechanical interventions in patients with knee OA.

Figure 1
Figure 1.Knee adduction moment

Biomechanical interventions and walking aids are an integral part of the knee OA care-pathway. Amongst them are footwear, wedge insoles, orthotics, and braces. Some have been included in disease management guidelines (OARSI, ACR, NICE, AAOS) (Carlson et al. 2018; Conaghan, Dickson, and Grant 2008; Richmond et al. 2010; Schnitzer 2002), mainly because they are conservative interventions with low risk. However, in 2021, The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) refined its recommendations on biomechanical interventions and had strongly advised against the use of lateral wedge insoles and advised with a moderate level of confidence on the use of canes and braces to alleviate pain and improve function and quality of life among patients with knee OA (American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2021).

Although footwear modification has not been officially reviewed and included in knee OA guidelines, there is some evidence on their ability to decrease peak external KAM and reduce pain. These include rocker-sole shoes, flexible/stiffness shoes, mobility shoes, lateral wedge insoles, conventional shoes with changing heel height, and walking with a toe-out (i.e., external rotation) gait pattern. None of the above have sufficient effect on KAM and symptoms (Radzimski, Mündermann, and Sole 2012).

The biomechanical interventions that are endorsed by the international guidelines committee are walking cane and valgus knee braces. Using a cane or a walking stick in the hand contralateral to the symptomatic knee can potentially reduce the peak KAM by 10% (Kemp et al. 2008). However, this might be a limitation when a patient suffers from a bilateral condition since holding the cane in the ipsilateral limb might cause an increase in KAM (Kemp et al. 2008). Valgus knee braces are designed to redistribute the loading in the knee by applying a valgus moment to generate an abduction moment to reduce the KAM and ultimately alleviate knee pain, yet its clinical effectiveness is inconclusive. One of the main limitations of knee braces is compliance. They are bulky, potentially uncomfortable, and might not be a practical daily solution for many patients.

Biomechanical Alteration of Gait (BMAG)

A home-based biomechanical intervention (AposHealth®, New York, US) that includes a unique foot-worn device to manipulate the center of pressure (COP) and train neuromuscular control and a home-based treatment plan has been in use for a few years. The therapy addresses the underlying biomechanical aspects of knee OA (Haim et al. 2008; Haim, Rozen, and Wolf 2010; Haim et al. 2011; Khoury et al. 2013, 2015; Solomonow-Avnon et al. 2015; Solomonow-Avnon, Herman, and Wolf 2019; Solomonow-Avnon et al. 2019; Khoury-Mireb et al. 2019; Debbi, Wolf, and Haim 2012; Goryachev, Debbi, Haim, and Wolf 2011; Goryachev, Debbi, Haim, Rozen, et al. 2011) (i.e., reducing loads by shifting the center of pressure and neuromuscular training), while reducing pain and improving function (Goryachev, Debbi, Haim, Rozen, et al. 2011; Debbi et al. 2015; Haim et al. 2012; Bar-Ziv et al. 2010, 2013; Drexler et al. 2012; Lador et al. 2013; Elbaz et al. 2010, 2011; Elbaz, Mor, et al. 2014; Lubovsky et al. 2015; Herman et al. 2018; Reichenbach et al. 2020; Miles and Greene 2020; Barzilay et al. 2015; Elbaz et al. 2009; Lee et al. 2018; Elbaz et al. 2013; Haim et al. 2013; Atoun et al. 2016; Elbaz, Debbi, et al. 2014; Yaari et al. 2015; Debbi et al. 2019; Drexler et al. 2013; Solomonow-Avnon et al. 2017; Segal et al. 2013; Tenenbaum et al. 2017) (Figure 2). Patients are instructed to wear a personally calibrated device for 30-60 minutes a day while performing their daily activities at home or work (usage time may increase gradually, depending on progress and symptoms). The application of the treatment comprises the functional rehabilitation principle, which stresses the importance of task-specific rehabilitation with repetitive and sub-conscious activities (Levin, Weiss, and Keshner 2015; Charlton et al. 2021). The treatment has a detailed methodology. A trained clinician conducts an in-depth assessment of the patient’s movement patterns and the root causes of their pain. This consultation includes questionnaires related to pain, joint function, and quality of life, an interview, computerized gait analysis, and physical examination. Once the patient has been evaluated, the clinician personalizes the Apos foot-worn device by calibrating the under-sole pods to the patient’s specific needs, validates the location of the pods using subjective and objective measures, and then prescribes a personalized program for the patient (supplement video 1). For example, in medial compartment knee OA, shifting the biomechanical elements laterally causes a lateral shift of the COP that leads to a reduction in KAM (Haim et al. 2008, 2011). Furthermore, shifting the biomechanical elements anteriorly causes an anterior shift of the COP and reduces knee flexion moment (Haim, Rozen, and Wolf 2010).

Figure 2
Figure 2.The biomechanical device
Supplement: A link to a YouTube video of the before & after effect.

Clinically, there is growing evidence on the effectiveness of this therapy in several MSK conditions, including knee OA, (Goryachev, Debbi, Haim, Rozen, et al. 2011; Debbi et al. 2015; Haim et al. 2012; Bar-Ziv et al. 2010, 2013; Drexler et al. 2012; Lador et al. 2013; Elbaz et al. 2010, 2011; Elbaz, Mor, et al. 2014; Lubovsky et al. 2015; Herman et al. 2018; Reichenbach et al. 2020; Miles and Greene 2020) low back pain (Barzilay et al. 2015; Elbaz et al. 2009; Lee et al. 2018), degenerative meniscal tear (Elbaz et al. 2013) anterior knee pain (Haim et al. 2013) spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee (Atoun et al. 2016), total knee arthroplasty (Elbaz, Debbi, et al. 2014; Yaari et al. 2015; Debbi et al. 2019), hip OA, (Drexler et al. 2013; Solomonow-Avnon et al. 2017), total hip arthroplasty (Segal et al. 2013), and recurrent ankle sprain (Tenenbaum et al. 2017). In summary, patients report a significant reduction in pain and improved function and quality of life. In addition, a significant improvement is also seen in objective gait metrics, including spatiotemporal, kinetic, and kinematic parameters. Lastly, there are no serious adverse events related to the treatment, and patients report high compliance with the treatment program (Elbaz et al. 2013).

We classified the evidence into two main areas: prospective clinical trials, RCT, or single cohort 3D motion analysis, done in a controlled environment with a pre-defined, relatively homogeneous patient population. The second one, equally important, is real-life evidence demonstrating the effectiveness in a heterogenic population suffering from multiple MSK conditions, frequently with severe comorbidities. Both methodologies complement each other and address different aspects, yet the effectiveness of the treatment on patients’ symptoms was significant in both routes. Whether in a controlled environment or in real-life clinical practice, the clinical outcomes following treatment meet the gold-standard clinical significance threshold (Copay et al. 2018; Pham et al. 2004).

With respect to knee OA, studies show an improvement in biomechanical parameters and indicators of knee OA while walking with and without the device including a reduction in KAM (Haim et al. 2012), a reduction in knee flexion moment (Debbi et al. 2015), improvement in muscle activation (Goryachev, Debbi, Haim, Rozen, et al. 2011) and improvement in spatiotemporal gait patterns (Lador et al. 2013; Elbaz et al. 2010; Elbaz, Mor, et al. 2014; Lubovsky et al. 2015; Herman et al. 2018). The improvement in biomechanical indicators was associated with improved patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), i.e., pain, functional disability, and quality of life (Bar-Ziv et al. 2010, 2013; Reichenbach et al. 2020). Recently, a double-blind RCT was published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (Reichenbach et al. 2020). Two hundred twenty (n=220) patients with knee OA were enrolled in a double-blind RCT that compared AposHealth to a sham device. Patients were assigned to one of two groups and were treated for six months. The primary outcome measure was the changes in pain and the secondary outcomes were function, QoL, gait patterns, and adverse events. A significant reduction in pain and improvement in function and quality of life was seen in the BMAG group with an average of 69% reduction of pain. 92% of the patients in the intervention group reported more than 30% reduction in pain, well above the minimal clinical important difference, and 83% of the reported more than 50% reduction in pain, a strong indication of the high efficacy with the number needed to treat (NNT) equal to three (Reichenbach et al. 2020). Another study evaluated the changes in KAM and symptoms of pain and functional disability in a sub-group analysis of disease severity measures by Kellgren and Lawrence (KL 2, KL 3-4) and found both groups to improve significantly. A trend towards increased improvement was seen in the more severe group (Haim et al. 2012). The treatment also seems to have a similar effect on sub-group analysis of age, BMI, and gender (Drexler et al. 2012; Lubovsky et al. 2015).

With respect to long-term data, a two-year follow-up study of patients with knee OA reported maintenance of clinical efficacy seen after 8 weeks over a 2-yrs timespan (Bar-Ziv et al. 2010, 2013). Patients reported a 62% reduction in pain and a 61% improved function with a significant time-by-treatment interaction. Another retrospective study evaluated pain, function, and gait patterns at 12 months and reported a significant increase of 16% in gait velocity alongside a significant reduction of 46% in pain and 45% in functional disability (Lubovsky et al. 2015). Interestingly, BMAG was shown to have a superiority effect as a rehabilitation regimen for patients post-TKR compared to traditional PT – an important fact given the statistics that suggest that 20%-30% of the post-TKR patients are with consistent pain (Yaari et al. 2015; Debbi et al. 2019; Wylde et al. 2011, 2018).

Although there is no published data on the cost-effectiveness of BMAG in knee OA population, one study showed a significant reduction of 58% in rescue medicine during a 2-month trial comparing the therapy to controls (Bar-Ziv et al. 2010). In a different study, the researchers reported that only 3% of patients with degenerative meniscal tear progressed to knee arthroscopy (Elbaz et al. 2013). One double-blind study with long-term two-year follow-up data on decay for total knee replacement reported that 2.6% of patients treated with BMAG required a TKR compared to 31% of patients in the control group, an absolute risk reduction of 28.4% (relative risk reduction of 92%), NNT = 3.5 (Bar-Ziv et al. 2013). There is a need for additional studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of this intervention as well as the long-term (>2 yrs.) effect.

Some limitations should be acknowledged. First, this article was not aimed to perform a systematic review of non-invasive biomechanical interventions for patients with knee OA. For that reason, we did not conduct a literature review and some information might be missing. Secondly, we provided a summary of evidence of a non-invasive biomechanical intervention and relied on the available scientific evidence to date of the review. There are only two large RCTs that assessed the clinical effect of the treatment and some small-size trials looking at long-term outcomes compared to controls. Although it appears that this intervention has positive results with minimal risks, more trials are warranted to determine the long-term effect of the treatment.

Figure 3
Figure 3.Mechanism of action

Conclusions

The increased prevalence of knee OA and its associated burden on the healthcare system, society, the individual, and caregivers is worrying. Moreover, the projections of annual rates of TKRs, the end-stage solution for patients with knee OA, and revision TKR are alarming. There is an urgent need for a systematic change to control these projections. In the presence of Value-Based Payment considerations to improve efficiency and effectiveness in delivering medical care, the entire healthcare system should be accountable for both quality and cost of care. With the recommendation of improving population and policymaker awareness of the importance and benefits of managing knee OA, including new solutions for an increasing number of people living with disability associated with knee OA is warranted. The reviewed non-invasive, home-based biomechanical intervention was found to be safe and effective for patients with knee OA and we believe that it has the potential to be of value to patients.

Submitted: December 23, 2021 EDT

Accepted: February 10, 2022 EDT

References

Al-Zahrani, K.S., and A.M.O. Bakheit. 2002. “A Study of the Gait Characteristics of Patients with Chronic Osteoarthritis of the Knee.” Disability and Rehabilitation 24 (5): 275–80. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1080/​09638280110087098.
Google Scholar
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2021. Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee (Non-Arthroplasty) Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline . 3rd ed.
Google Scholar
Amin, Shreyasee, Niyom Luepongsak, Chris A. McGibbon, Michael P. LaValley, David E. Krebs, and David T. Felson. 2004. “Knee Adduction Moment and Development of Chronic Knee Pain in Elders.” Arthritis Care & Research 51 (3): 371–76. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​art.20396.
Google Scholar
Atoun, Ehud, Amit Mor, Ganit Segal, Ronen Debi, Dan Grinberg, Yeshaiau Benedict, Nimrod Rozen, Yiftah Beer, and Avi Elbaz. 2016. “A Non-Invasive, Home-Based Biomechanical Therapy for Patients with Spontaneous Osteonecrosis of the Knee.” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 11 (1). https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1186/​s13018-016-0472-0.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Barzilay, Yair, Ganit Segal, Raphael Lotan, Gilad Regev, Yiftah Beer, Baron S. Lonner, Amit Mor, and Avi Elbaz. 2015. “Patients with Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain Who Reported Reduction in Pain and Improvement in Function Also Demonstrated an Improvement in Gait Pattern.” European Spine Journal 25 (9): 2761–66. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00586-015-4004-0.
Google Scholar
Bar-Ziv, Yaron, Yiftah Beer, Yuval Ran, Shaike Benedict, and Nahum Halperin. 2010. “A Treatment Applying a Biomechanical Device to the Feet of Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis Results in Reduced Pain and Improved Function: A Prospective Controlled Study.” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 11 (1). https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1186/​1471-2474-11-179.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Bar-Ziv, Yaron, Eytan M. Debbi, Yuval Ran, Shaike Benedict, Nahum Halperin, and Yiftah Beer. 2013. “Long-Term Effects of AposTherapy in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Two-Year Followup.” Arthritis 2013 (689236): 1–9. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1155/​2013/​689236.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Carlson, Victor Rex, Alvin Chua Ong, Fabio Ramiro Orozco, Victor Hugo Hernandez, Rex William Lutz, and Zachary Douglas Post. 2018. “Compliance With the AAOS Guidelines for Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Survey of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.” Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 26 (3): 103–7. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.5435/​jaaos-d-17-00164.
Google Scholar
Charlton, Jesse M, Janice J Eng, Linda C Li, and Michael A Hunt. 2021. “Learning Gait Modifications for Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation: Applying Motor Learning Principles to Improve Research and Clinical Implementation.” Physical Therapy 101 (2). https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1093/​ptj/​pzaa207.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Conaghan, Philip G, John Dickson, and Robert L Grant. 2008. “Care and Management of Osteoarthritis in Adults: Summary of NICE Guidance.” BMJ 336 (7642): 502–3. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1136/​bmj.39490.608009.ad.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Copay, Anne G., Blake Eyberg, Andrew S. Chung, Kenneth S. Zurcher, Norman Chutkan, and Mark J. Spangehl. 2018. “Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Orthopaedic Literature, Part II: Lower Extremity.” JBJS Reviews 6 (9): e2. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2106/​jbjs.rvw.17.00160.
Google Scholar
Debbi, Eytan M., Benjamin Bernfeld, Amir Herman, Moshe Salai, Yocheved Laufer, Alon Wolf, Amir Haim, Michael Soudry, and Nimrod Rozen. 2019. “A Biomechanical Foot-Worn Device Improves Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes.” The Journal of Arthroplasty 34 (1): 47–55. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.arth.2018.09.077.
Google Scholar
Debbi, Eytan M., Alon Wolf, Yulia Goryachev, Nimrod Rozen, and Amir Haim. 2015. “Alterations in Sagittal Plane Knee Kinetics in Knee Osteoarthritis Using a Biomechanical Therapy Device.” Annals of Biomedical Engineering 43 (5): 1089–97. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10439-014-1177-3.
Google Scholar
Debbi, Eytan M, Alon Wolf, and Amir Haim. 2012. “Detecting and Quantifying Global Instability during a Dynamic Task Using Kinetic and Kinematic Gait Parameters.” Journal of Biomechanics 45 (8): 1366–71. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jbiomech.2012.03.007.
Google Scholar
Drexler, M., Avi Elbaz, A. Mor, R. Debi, E.M. Debbi, A. Haim, R. Lador, M. Salai, and G. Segal. 2012. “Effects of a Customized Biomechanical Therapy on Patients with Medial Compartment Knee Osteoarthritis.” Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 55 (4): 213–28. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.rehab.2012.01.002.
Google Scholar
Drexler, M., G. Segal, A. Lahad, A. Haim, U. Rath, A. Mor, D.R. Morgensteren, M. Salai, and A. Elbaz. 2013. “A Non-Invasive Foot-Worn Biomechanical Device and Treatment for Patients with Hip Osteoarthritis.” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 21 (April):153–57. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.joca.2013.02.215.
Google Scholar
Egloff, C, T Hügle, and V Valderrabano. 2012. “Biomechanics and Pathomechanisms of Osteoarthritis.” Swiss Medical Weekly 142:w13583 (July). https:/​/​doi.org/​10.4414/​smw.2012.13583.
Google Scholar
Elbaz, Avi, Yiftah Beer, Ehud Rath, Guy Morag, Ganit Segal, Eytan M. Debbi, Daniel Wasser, Amit Mor, and Ronen Debi. 2013. “A Unique Foot-Worn Device for Patients with Degenerative Meniscal Tear.” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 21 (2): 380–87. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00167-012-2026-2.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Elbaz, Avi, Eytan M. Debbi, Ganit Segal, Amit Mor, Yaron Bar-Ziv, Steven Velkes, Vadim Benkovich, Nadav Shasha, Ronit Shoham-Blonder, and Ronen Debi. 2014. “New Approach for the Rehabilitation of Patients Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.” Journal of Orthopaedics 11 (2): 72–77. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jor.2014.04.009.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Elbaz, Avi, Yigal Mirovsky, Amit Mor, Shavit Enosh, Eytan Debbi, Ganit Segal, Yair Barzilay, and Ronen Debi. 2009. “A Novel Biomechanical Device Improves Gait Pattern in Patient with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain.” Spine 34 (15): 507–12. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1097/​brs.0b013e3181a98d3f.
Google Scholar
Elbaz, Avi, A. Mor, G. Segal, M. Drexler, D. Norman, E. Peled, et al. 2011. “[A New Non-Invasive Biomechanical Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis Improves Clinical Symptoms and Gait Patterns].” Harefuah 150 (10): 769–73.
Google Scholar
Elbaz, Avi, Amit Mor, Ganit Segal, Yoav Aloni, Yee Hong Teo, Yee Sze Teo, Shamal Das-De, and Seng Jin Yeo. 2014. “Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis Demonstrate Improved Gait Pattern and Reduced Pain Following a Non-Invasive Biomechanical Therapy: A Prospective Multi-Centre Study on Singaporean Population.” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 9 (1): 1–8. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1186/​1749-799x-9-1.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Elbaz, Avi, Amit Mor, Ganit Segal, Eytan Debbi, Amir Haim, Nahum Halperin, and Ronen Debi. 2010. “APOS Therapy Improves Clinical Measurements and Gait in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis.” Clinical Biomechanics 25 (9): 920–25. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.clinbiomech.2010.06.017.
Google Scholar
Endstrasser, Franz, Matthias Braito, Markus Linser, Anna Spicher, Moritz Wagner, and Alexander Brunner. 2020. “The Negative Impact of the COVID-19 Lockdown on Pain and Physical Function in Patients with End-Stage Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis.” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 28 (8): 2435–43. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00167-020-06104-3.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Gök, Haydar, Süreyya Ergin, and Günes Yavuzer. 2002. “Kinetic and Kinematic Characteristics of Gait in Patients with Medial Knee Arthrosis.” Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 73 (6): 647–52. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.3109/​17453670209178029.
Google Scholar
Goryachev, Yulia, Eytan M. Debbi, Amir Haim, Nimrod Rozen, and Alon Wolf. 2011. “Foot Center of Pressure Manipulation and Gait Therapy Influence Lower Limb Muscle Activation in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Knee.” Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 21 (5): 704–11. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jelekin.2011.05.001.
Google Scholar
Goryachev, Yulia, Eytan M. Debbi, Amir Haim, and Alon Wolf. 2011. “The Effect of Manipulation of the Center of Pressure of the Foot during Gait on the Activation Patterns of the Lower Limb Musculature.” Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 21 (2): 333–39. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jelekin.2010.11.009.
Google Scholar
Haim, Amir, Nimrod Rozen, Samuel Dekel, Nachum Halperin, and Alon Wolf. 2008. “Control of Knee Coronal Plane Moment via Modulation of Center of Pressure: A Prospective Gait Analysis Study.” Journal of Biomechanics 41 (14): 3010–16. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jbiomech.2008.07.029.
Google Scholar
Haim, Amir, Nimrod Rozen, and Alon Wolf. 2010. “The Influence of Sagittal Center of Pressure Offset on Gait Kinematics and Kinetics.” Journal of Biomechanics 43 (5): 969–77. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jbiomech.2009.10.045.
Google Scholar
Haim, Amir, Guy Rubin, Nimrod Rozen, Yulya Goryachev, and Alon Wolf. 2012. “Reduction in Knee Adduction Moment via Non-Invasive Biomechanical Training: A Longitudinal Gait Analysis Study.” Journal of Biomechanics 45 (1): 41–45. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jbiomech.2011.10.017.
Google Scholar
Haim, Amir, Ganit Segal, Avi Elbaz, Amit Mor, Gabriel Agar, Yaron Bar-Ziv, Yiftah Beer, Guy Morag, Ronen Debi, and Ehud Atoun. 2013. “The Outcome of a Novel Biomechanical Therapy for Patients Suffering from Anterior Knee Pain.” The Knee 20 (6): 595–99. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.knee.2012.11.009.
Google Scholar
Haim, Amir, Alon Wolf, Guy Rubin, Yulya Genis, Mona Khoury, and Nimrod Rozen. 2011. “Effect of Center of Pressure Modulation on Knee Adduction Moment in Medial Compartment Knee Osteoarthritis.” Journal of Orthopaedic Research 29 (11): 1668–74. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​jor.21422.
Google Scholar
Herman, Amir, A. M, G. S, N. S, Y. B, N. H, et al. 2018. “Knee Osteoarthritis Functional Classification Scheme: Validation of Time Dependent Treatment Effect. One Year Follow-Up of 518 Patients.” Journal of Arthritis 7:1–6.
Google Scholar
Hurwitz, D. E., A. B. Ryals, J. P. Case, J. A. Block, and T. P. Andriacchi. 2002. “The Knee Adduction Moment during Gait in Subjects with Knee Osteoarthritis Is More Closely Correlated with Static Alignment than Radiographic Disease Severity, Toe out Angle and Pain.” Journal of Orthopaedic Research 20 (1): 101–7. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​s0736-0266(01)00081-x.
Google Scholar
Kaufman, Kenton R, Christine Hughes, Bernard F Morrey, Michael Morrey, and Kai-Nan An. 2001. “Gait Characteristics of Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis.” Journal of Biomechanics 34 (7): 907–15. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​s0021-9290(01)00036-7.
Google Scholar
Kemp, Georgina, Kay M. Crossley, Tim V. Wrigley, Ben R. Metcalf, and Rana S. Hinman. 2008. “Reducing Joint Loading in Medial Knee Osteoarthritis: Shoes and Canes.” Arthritis & Rheumatism 59 (5): 609–14. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​art.23578.
Google Scholar
Khoury, Mona, Amir Haim, Amir Herman, Nimrod Rozen, and Alon Wolf. 2015. “Alteration of the Foot Center of Pressure Trajectory by an Unstable Shoe Design.” Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 8 (1). https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1186/​s13047-015-0124-3.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Khoury, Mona, Alon Wolf, Eytan M. Debbi, Amir Herman, and Amir Haim. 2013. “Foot Center of Pressure Trajectory Alteration by Biomechanical Manipulation of Shoe Design.” Foot & Ankle International 34 (4): 593–98. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1177/​1071100713477613.
Google Scholar
Khoury-Mireb, Mona, Deborah Solomonow-Avnon, Nimrod Rozen, and Alon Wolf. 2019. “The Effect of Unstable Shoe Designs on the Variability of Gait Measures.” Gait & Posture 69 (March):60–65. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.gaitpost.2019.01.017.
Google Scholar
Klug, Alexander, Yves Gramlich, Maximilian Rudert, Philipp Drees, Reinhard Hoffmann, Manuel Weißenberger, and Karl Philipp Kutzner. 2020. “The Projected Volume of Primary and Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Will Place an Immense Burden on Future Health Care Systems over the next 30 Years.” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 29 (10): 3287–98. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00167-020-06154-7.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Lador, Ran, Ganit Segal, Yona Kosashvili, Michael Drexler, Ofir Chechik, Amir Haim, Moshe Salai, Avi Elbaz, and Ronen Debi. 2013. “Noninvasive Biomechanical Therapy Improves Objective and Subjective Measurements of Pain and Function in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis.” Current Orthopaedic Practice 24 (6): 674–80. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1097/​bco.0000000000000029.
Google Scholar
Lee, Se Won, Ratnakar Veeramachaneni, Ibrahim Abou Saleh, Karen Morice, Timothy Tiu, Yungtai Lo, Kevin Frison, and Matthew N. Bartels. 2018. “Footwear-Generated Dynamic Biomechanical Manipulation and Perturbation Training for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain.” PM&R 10 (8): 836–42. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pmrj.2018.02.005.
Google Scholar
Levin, Mindy F., Patrice L. Weiss, and Emily A. Keshner. 2015. “Emergence of Virtual Reality as a Tool for Upper Limb Rehabilitation: Incorporation of Motor Control and Motor Learning Principles.” Physical Therapy 95 (3): 415–25. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2522/​ptj.20130579.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Lewek, Michael D., Katherine S. Rudolph, and Lynn Snyder-Mackler. 2004. “Quadriceps Femoris Muscle Weakness and Activation Failure in Patients with Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis.” Journal of Orthopaedic Research 22 (1): 110–15. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​s0736-0266(03)00154-2.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Lubovsky, Omri, Amit Mor, Ganit Segal, Ehud Atoun, Ronen Debi, Yiftah Beer, Gabriel Agar, Doron Norman, Eli Peled, and Avi Elbaz. 2015. “A Novel Self-Care Biomechanical Treatment for Obese Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis.” International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases 20 (7): 818–24. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1111/​1756-185x.12694.
Google Scholar
McAlindon, T.E., R.R. Bannuru, M.C. Sullivan, N.K. Arden, F. Berenbaum, S.M. Bierma-Zeinstra, G.A. Hawker, et al. 2014. “OARSI Guidelines for the Non-Surgical Management of Knee Osteoarthritis.” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 22 (3): 363–88. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.joca.2014.01.003.
Google Scholar
Messier, S.P., R.F. Loeser, J.L. Hoover, E.L. Semble, and C.M. Wise. 1992. “Osteoarthritis of the Knee: Effects on Gait, Strength, and Flexibility.” Arch Phys Med Rehabil 73 (1): 29–36.
Google Scholar
Miles, Christopher, and Andrew Greene. 2020. “The Effect of Treatment with a Non-Invasive Foot Worn Biomechanical Device on Subjective and Objective Measures in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis- a Retrospective Analysis on a UK Population.” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 21 (1). https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1186/​s12891-020-03382-3.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Mündermann, Annegret, Chris O. Dyrby, and Thomas P. Andriacchi. 2005. “Secondary Gait Changes in Patients with Medial Compartment Knee Osteoarthritis: Increased Load at the Ankle, Knee, and Hip during Walking.” Arthritis & Rheumatism 52 (9): 2835–44. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​art.21262.
Google Scholar
Pham, T, D van der Heijde, R.D Altman, J.J Anderson, N Bellamy, M Hochberg, L Simon, V Strand, T Woodworth, and M Dougados. 2004. “OMERACT-OARSI Initiative: Osteoarthritis Research Society International Set of Responder Criteria for Osteoarthritis Clinical Trials Revisited.” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 12 (5): 389–99. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.joca.2004.02.001.
Google Scholar
Radzimski, Andy Oliver, Annegret Mündermann, and Gisela Sole. 2012. “Effect of Footwear on the External Knee Adduction Moment — A Systematic Review.” The Knee 19 (3): 163–75. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.knee.2011.05.013.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Stephan, David T. Felson, Cesar A. Hincapié, Sarah Heldner, Lukas Bütikofer, Armando Lenz, Bruno R. da Costa, et al. 2020. “Effect of Biomechanical Footwear on Knee Pain in People With Knee Osteoarthritis: The BIOTOK Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA 323 (18): 1802–12. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1001/​jama.2020.3565.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Richmond, John, David Hunter, James Irrgang, Morgan H Jones, Lynn Snyder-Mackler, Daniel Van Durme, Cheryl Rubin, et al. 2010. “American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline on the Treatment of Osteoarthritis (OA) of the Knee.” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume 92 (4): 990–93. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2106/​jbjs.i.00982.
Google Scholar
Schnitzer, Thomas J. 2002. “Update of ACR Guidelines for Osteoarthritis: Role of the Coxibs.” Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 23 (4): S24–30. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​s0885-3924(02)00372-x.
Google Scholar
Segal, Ganit, Yaron Bar-Ziv, Steven Velkes, Vadim Benkovich, Gilad Stanger, Eytan M Debbi, Ronen Debi, Amit Mor, and Avi Elbaz. 2013. “A Non-Invasive Biomechanical Device and Treatment for Patients Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: Results of a 6-Month Pilot Investigation.” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 8 (1). https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1186/​1749-799x-8-13.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Sharma, Leena, Debra E. Hurwitz, Eugene J-M. A. Thonar, Jeffrey A. Sum, Mary Ellen Lenz, Dorothy D. Dunlop, Thomas J. Schnitzer, Gretchen Kirwan-Mellis, and Thomas P. Andriacchi. 1998. “Knee Adduction Moment, Serum Hyaluronan Level, and Disease Severity in Medial Tibiofemoral Osteoarthritis.” Arthritis & Rheumatism 41 (7): 1233–40. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​1529-0131(199807)41:7.
Google Scholar
Solomonow-Avnon, Deborah, Amir Herman, Uriel Giwnewer, Nimrod Rozen, Avi Elbaz, Amit Mor, and Alon Wolf. 2019. “Trunk Kinematic, Kinetic, and Neuro-Muscular Response to Foot Center of Pressure Translation along the Medio-Lateral Foot Axis during Gait.” Journal of Biomechanics 86 (March):141–48. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jbiomech.2019.01.052.
Google Scholar
Solomonow-Avnon, Deborah, Amir Herman, Daniel Levin, Nimrod Rozen, Eli Peled, and Alon Wolf. 2017. “Positive Outcomes Following Gait Therapy Intervention for Hip Osteoarthritis: A Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Orthopaedic Research 35 (10): 2222–32. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​jor.23511.
Google Scholar
Solomonow-Avnon, Deborah, Amir Herman, and Alon Wolf. 2019. “Mechanism of Reducing Knee Adduction Moment by Shortening of the Knee Lever Arm via Medio-Lateral Manipulation of Foot Center of Pressure: A Pilot Study.” Journal of Biomechanics 83 (January):143–49. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jbiomech.2018.11.041.
Google Scholar
Solomonow-Avnon, Deborah, Alon Wolf, Amir Herman, Nimrod Rozen, and Amir Haim. 2015. “Reduction of Frontal-Plane Hip Joint Reaction Force via Medio-Lateral Foot Center of Pressure Manipulation: A Pilot Study.” Journal of Orthopaedic Research 33 (2): 261–69. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​jor.22744.
Google Scholar
Storheim, Kjersti, and John-Anker Zwart. 2014. “Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Global Burden of Disease Study.” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 73 (6): 949–50. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1136/​annrheumdis-2014-205327.
Google Scholar
Teichtahl, A.J., A.E. Wluka, M.E. Morris, Cicuttini SR Davis, and F.M. 2006. “The Relationship between the Knee Adduction Moment and Knee Pain in Middle-Aged Women without Radiographic Osteoarthritis.” J Rheumatol 33 (9): 1845–48.
Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, Shay, Ofir Chechik, Jason Bariteau, Nathan Bruck, Yiftah Beer, Mazen Falah, Ganit Segal, Amit Mor, and Avi Elbaz. 2017. “Gait Abnormalities in Patients with Chronic Ankle Instability Can Improve Following a Non-Invasive Biomechanical Therapy: A Retrospective Analysis.” Journal of Physical Therapy Science 29 (4): 677–84. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1589/​jpts.29.677.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Wittenauer, R., L. Smith, and K. Aden. 2013. “Priority Medicines for Europe and the World ‘A Public Health Approach to Innovation.’” World Health Organization.
Wylde, Vikki, Andrew Beswick, Julie Bruce, Ashley Blom, Nicholas Howells, and Rachael Gooberman-Hill. 2018. “Chronic Pain after Total Knee Arthroplasty.” EFORT Open Reviews 3 (8): 461–70. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1302/​2058-5241.3.180004.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Wylde, Vikki, Sarah Hewlett, Ian D. Learmonth, and Paul Dieppe. 2011. “Persistent Pain after Joint Replacement: Prevalence, Sensory Qualities, and Postoperative Determinants.” Pain 152 (3): 566–72. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pain.2010.11.023.
Google Scholar
Yaari, Lee, Yona Kosashvili, Ganit Segal, Shai Shemesh, Steven Velkes, Amit Mor, Ronen Debi, Benjamin Bernfeld, and Avi Elbaz. 2015. “A Novel Non-Invasive Adjuvant Biomechanical Treatment for Patients with Altered Rehabilitation after Total Knee Arthroplasty: Results of a Pilot Investigation.” Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 7 (2): 191–98. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.4055/​cios.2015.7.2.191.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed
Zhang, Li, Geng Liu, Bing Han, Zhe Wang, Yuzhou Yan, Jianbing Ma, and Pingping Wei. 2020. “Knee Joint Biomechanics in Physiological Conditions and How Pathologies Can Affect It: A Systematic Review.” Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 2020 (7451683): 1–22. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1155/​2020/​7451683.
Google ScholarPubMed CentralPubMed

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to enhance your experience and support COUNTER Metrics for transparent reporting of readership statistics. Cookie data is not sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Powered by Scholastica, the modern academic journal management system