Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common and disabling disease among the elderly population. The optimal conservative treatment for knee OA is not well established.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) combined with progressive resistance exercise (PRE) in improving physical function and pain in patients with knee OA.
METHODS: Thirty-four patients with knee OA (17 in each group) participated in a single-blind randomized control study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 24 sessions of either combined PEMF and PRE (treatment group) or PRE only (control group). Patients were evaluated at pre-treatment, post-treatment (2 months), and at 3-month and 6-month follow-ups using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS); walking speed and 5-times chair stand test. Mixed ANOVA was used for statistical analysis with Bonferroni adjustments.
RESULTS: There was no significant group-by-time interaction for any outcome (P> 0.05). However, both groups scored significantly higher on the NPRS and KOOS at post-treatment, 3-, and 6-month follow-up compared to their baseline. Further, both groups completed the 5-times chair stand test and walking speed test with significantly less time at all post-treatment time points than the pre-treatment. None of the study outcomes (NPRS, KOOS, walking speed, and 5 times chair stand) were significantly different between groups at any of the time points.
CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment options, PRE only versus PRE with PEMF, were equally effective in decreasing pain and improving physical function in patients with knee OA. This would suggest that the optimal parameters for PEMF that may show beneficial effects for knee OA when added to PRE training need to be determined.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) combined with progressive resistance exercise (PRE) in improving physical function and pain in patients with knee OA.
METHODS: Thirty-four patients with knee OA (17 in each group) participated in a single-blind randomized control study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 24 sessions of either combined PEMF and PRE (treatment group) or PRE only (control group). Patients were evaluated at pre-treatment, post-treatment (2 months), and at 3-month and 6-month follow-ups using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS); walking speed and 5-times chair stand test. Mixed ANOVA was used for statistical analysis with Bonferroni adjustments.
RESULTS: There was no significant group-by-time interaction for any outcome (P> 0.05). However, both groups scored significantly higher on the NPRS and KOOS at post-treatment, 3-, and 6-month follow-up compared to their baseline. Further, both groups completed the 5-times chair stand test and walking speed test with significantly less time at all post-treatment time points than the pre-treatment. None of the study outcomes (NPRS, KOOS, walking speed, and 5 times chair stand) were significantly different between groups at any of the time points.
CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment options, PRE only versus PRE with PEMF, were equally effective in decreasing pain and improving physical function in patients with knee OA. This would suggest that the optimal parameters for PEMF that may show beneficial effects for knee OA when added to PRE training need to be determined.
摘要：
背景：膝骨关节炎（OA）是老年人群常见的致残疾病。膝关节OA的最佳保守治疗方法尚未完全确定。
目的：本研究旨在评估脉冲电磁场（PEMF）联合渐进性抗阻运动（PRE）改善膝关节OA患者身体功能和疼痛的有效性。
方法：34例膝关节OA患者（每组17例）参加了一项单盲随机对照研究。患者被随机分配接受24个疗程的PEMF和PRE（治疗组）或仅PRE（对照组）。患者在治疗前进行评估，治疗后（2个月），在3个月和6个月的随访中，使用膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结果评分（KOOS），数字疼痛评分量表（NPRS）；步行速度和5次椅子站立测试。混合方差分析用于具有Bonferroni调整的统计分析。
结果：对于任何结果，均无显著的组间交互作用（P>0.05）。然而,两组在治疗后的NPRS和KOOS得分均明显更高，3-,与基线相比，进行了6个月的随访。Further,两组在所有治疗后时间点完成5次坐椅试验和步行速度试验,时间均明显少于治疗前.没有研究结果(NPRS，KOOS,步行速度,和5次椅子站立）在任何时间点两组之间显着不同。
结论：两种治疗方案，仅PRE与使用PEMF的PRE相比，在减轻膝关节OA患者的疼痛和改善身体功能方面同样有效。这将表明,需要确定当添加到PRE训练时可能对膝盖OA显示有益效果的PEMF的最佳参数。
目的：本研究旨在评估脉冲电磁场（PEMF）联合渐进性抗阻运动（PRE）改善膝关节OA患者身体功能和疼痛的有效性。
方法：34例膝关节OA患者（每组17例）参加了一项单盲随机对照研究。患者被随机分配接受24个疗程的PEMF和PRE（治疗组）或仅PRE（对照组）。患者在治疗前进行评估，治疗后（2个月），在3个月和6个月的随访中，使用膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结果评分（KOOS），数字疼痛评分量表（NPRS）；步行速度和5次椅子站立测试。混合方差分析用于具有Bonferroni调整的统计分析。
结果：对于任何结果，均无显著的组间交互作用（P>0.05）。然而,两组在治疗后的NPRS和KOOS得分均明显更高，3-,与基线相比，进行了6个月的随访。Further,两组在所有治疗后时间点完成5次坐椅试验和步行速度试验,时间均明显少于治疗前.没有研究结果(NPRS，KOOS,步行速度,和5次椅子站立）在任何时间点两组之间显着不同。
结论：两种治疗方案，仅PRE与使用PEMF的PRE相比，在减轻膝关节OA患者的疼痛和改善身体功能方面同样有效。这将表明,需要确定当添加到PRE训练时可能对膝盖OA显示有益效果的PEMF的最佳参数。
