Faculty Bibliography

Clinical practice guidelines have been elaborated to summarize evidence related to the management of knee osteoarthritis and to facilitate uptake of evidence-based knowledge by clinicians. The objectives of the present review were summarizing the recommendations of existing guidelines on knee osteoarthritis, and assessing the quality of the guidelines using a standardized and validated instrument--the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) tool. Internet medical literature databases from 2001 to 2006 were searched for guidelines, with six guidelines being identified. Thirteen clinician researchers participated in the review. Each reviewer was trained in the AGREE instrument. The guidelines were distributed to four groups of three or four reviewers, each group reviewing one guideline with the exception of one group that reviewed two guidelines. One independent evaluator reviewed all guidelines. All guidelines effectively addressed only a minority of AGREE domains. Clarity/presentation was effectively addressed in three out of six guidelines, scope/purpose and rigour of development in two guidelines, editorial independence in one guideline, and stakeholder involvement and applicability in none. The clinical management recommendation tended to be similar among guidelines, although interventions addressed varied. Acetaminophen was recommended for initial pain treatment, combined with exercise and education. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were recommended if acetaminophen failed to control pain, but cautiously because of gastrointestinal risks. Surgery was recommended in the presence of persistent pain and disability. Education and activity management interventions were superficially addressed in most guidelines. Guideline creators should use the AGREE criteria when developing guidelines. Innovative and effective methods of knowledge translation to health professionals are needed

Female athletes are substantially more susceptible than males to suffer acute non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injury. A limited number of studies have identified possible biomechanical risk factors that differ between genders. The effect of fatigue on the biomechanics of landing has also been inadequately investigated. The objective of the study was to examine the effect of gender and fatigue on peak values of biomechanical variables during landing from a jump. Thirty-two recreational athletes performed bilateral drop jump landings from a 40 cm platform. Kinetic, kinematic and electromyographic data were collected before and after a functional fatigue protocol. Females landed with 9 degrees greater peak knee valgus (p = 0.001) and 140% greater maximum vertical ground reaction forces (p = 0.003) normalized to body weight compared to males. Fatigue increased peak foot abduction by 1.7 degrees (p = 0.042), peak rectus femoris activity by 27% (p = 0.018), and peak vertical ground reaction force (p = 0.038) by 20%. The results of the study suggest that landing with increased peak knee valgus and vertical ground reaction force may contribute to increased risk for knee injury in females. Fatigue caused significant but small changes on some biomechanical variables. Anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention programs should focus on implementing strategies to effectively teach females to control knee valgus and ground reaction force. Key pointsFemale athletes landed with increased knee valgus and VGRF which may predispose them to ACL injury.Fatigue elicited a similar response in male and female athletes.The effectiveness of sports injury prevention programs may improve by focusing on teaching females to land softer and with less knee valgus.

BACKGROUND: Evidence exists linking breath control to increases in intra-abdominal pressure and lumbar stability. Weight-lifting experts use this evidence as a rationale to suggest that increases in lumbar stability afforded by specific forms of breath control can influence the amount of force produced by the trunk. No studies have examined this issue. Therefore, this study determined whether voluntary control of the breath is related to maximal trunk extension force and if maximal force is correlated to intra-abdominal pressure. METHODS: Thirteen men and 20 women (mean age: 25.6 years (5.5)) performed a maximal isometric trunk exertion in a knee bent posture using voluntary breath conditions: (1) inhalation prior to exertion with hold during exertion; (2) exhalation prior to exertion with hold during the exertion; (3) inhalation prior to the exertion with exhalation during the exertion. A subset of subjects (n=11) were also simultaneously measured for intra-abdominal pressure. Separate repeated measures ANOVA were used to determine the effects of breath conditions on force and intra-abdominal pressure. Pearson coefficients were used to determine the correlation between force and intra-abdominal pressure. FINDINGS: Breath control did not significantly affect isometric force production (P=.089) but did affect intra-abdominal pressure (P=.003). Correlations between force and intra-abdominal pressure in each breath condition were low (range: 0.152-0.583). INTERPRETATION: Although breath control was shown to influence intra-abdominal pressure, it does not appear to influence isometric trunk extension force in a knees bent position. Further, the intra-abdominal pressure produced in such efforts appears to be unrelated to the amount of force produced

STUDY DESIGN: A cohort study of patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP) participated in a 4-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that predict work retention 24 months after treatment in patients with nonspecific LBP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is evidence that select physical, psychologic, and psychosocial factors are related to positive outcome for work-related nonspecific LBP. However, there is very little information related to work retention following an episode of nonspecific LBP. This is an exploratory study to identify select physical and psychosocial factors related to work retention. METHODS: Patients who returned to work after treatment (n = 67) were followed for 2 years. Physical baseline measures included tests of flexibility, strength, and functional capacity. Psychosocial baseline measures were The Symptoms Checklist 90-R, The Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory, The Oswestry Scale of perceived disability, The Work Stress Inventory, and The Quality of Life Scale. All physical parameters, perceived disability, and quality of life were tested before and after treatment. The dependent variable, work retention, was defined as the number of days that the subject worked during the 2-year follow-up period. Survival analysis was used to establish the predictive model. RESULT: The average time out of work before treatment was 9 months (standard deviation 12.8) for 67 subjects (mean age 40 years [standard deviation 9.6]), including 18 females and 49 males. There were 18 participants (25%) that had interruption of work retention at follow-up. Average work retention was 362 days (range 47-682). Variables that reached a P value of <0.10 in the bivariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis. They were trunk flexion (hazard ratio [HR = 2.4], 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-4.38; P = 0.01), trunk extension (HR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.02-4.16; P = 0.04), the somatization scale from the Symptom Checklist 90 revised (HR = 2.0, 95% CI 1.03-4.05; P = 0.04), and the obsessive-compulsiveness scale from the Symptom Checklist 90 revised (HR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.12-1.15; P = 0.09). Results showed that post-test trunk flexion, somatization, and obsessive compulsiveness predicted work retention (final trunk flexion HR = 2.5 [95% CI 1.26-4.79; P = 0.01], somatization scale HR = 2.5 [95% CI 1.25-4.93; P = 0.01], and obsessive compulsion HR = 0.2 [95% CI 0.07-0.77; P = 0.02]). CONCLUSION: Psychosocial and physical factors are associated with work retention for patients with nonspecific LBP. The predictive value of certain constructs may vary with the time when they are assessed and how outcome is operationalized. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings

The goal of this study was to determine which activities in four domains, daily life, exercises, sports and occupational activities, should be recommended, in favor or against, for the patient suffering from knee or hip OA. METHODS: Scientific literature was searched in Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases for articles in French or English, reporting original data. The articles were evaluated with standardized epidemiological criteria. Seventy-two articles were retained. Recommendations were graded according to the level of scientific evidence (A high, B moderate, C clinical consensus) and were formulated for primary care. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For activity of daily life (ADL), the OASIS group states with a moderate level of scientific evidence, that ADL are a risk factor for knee OA and that risk increases with intensity and duration of activity. The group concludes that healthy subjects as well as OA patients in general can pursue a high level of physical activity, provided the activity is not painful and does not predispose to trauma (grade B). Radiographic or clinical OA is not a contraindication to promoting activity in patients who have a sedentary lifestyle (grade C). For exercises and other structured activities pursued with a goal of health improvement, the group states with a high level of scientific evidence that they have a favourable effect on pain and function in the sedentary knee OA patient. The OASIS group recommends the practice of exercises and other structured activities for the sedentary patient with knee OA (grade A). Static exercises are not favored over dynamic exercises, availability, preference and tolerance being the criteria for the choice of an exercise (grade A). As results deteriorate when exercises are stopped, they should be performed at a frequency of between one and three times per week (grade B). Professional assistance can be useful in improving initial compliance and perseverance (grade B). There is no scientific argument to support halting exercise in case of an OA flare-up (grade C). For sports and recreational activity, the group states with a high degree of scientific evidence, that these activities are a risk factor for knee and hip OA and that the risk correlates with intensity and duration of exposure. The group also states, with a high degree of scientific evidence, that the risk of OA associated with sport is lesser than that associated with a history of trauma and overweight. No firm conclusion could be drawn about the possible protective role of sports such as cycling, swimming or golf. The OASIS group recommends that athletes should be informed that joint trauma is a greater risk factor than the practice of sport (Grade A). The high level athlete should be informed that the risk of OA is associated with the duration and intensity of exposure (Grade B). The OA patient can continue to engage regularly in recreational sports as long as the activity does not cause pain (Grade C). The OA patient who practices a sport at risk for joint trauma should be encouraged to change sport (Grade C). For occupational activity, the OASIS group states with a high level of scientific evidence that there is a relationship between occupational activity and OA of the knee and hip. The precise nature of biomechanical stresses leading to OA remains unclear but factors such as high loads on the joint, unnatural body position, heavy lifting, climbing and jumping may contribute to knee and hip OA. The group recommends that taking an occupational history should always be part of managing the OA patient (Grade B). In the knee or hip OA patient, work-related activity that produces or maintains pain should be avoided (Grade B). Physicians should be alerted by the early knee and hip signs and symptoms in workers exposed to stresses that are known or supposed to favour knee or hip OA (Grade C)