Abstract
Objective. In this study, we compared the effects of intermittent pneumatic compression along with conventional treatment with cold-pack treatment along with conventional treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methods. Eighty-nine patients with knee osteoarthritis participated in this study. One group received ultrasound, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, electrical stimulation, exercise, and cold packs. The second group received ultrasound, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, electrical stimulation, exercise, and intermittent pneumatic compression. Range of motion, muscle strength, knee swelling, pain intensity, and functional status were measured at baseline and 4th week. Results. We found significant improvements in range of motion, muscle strength, pain intensity, and functional status after the treatment in both groups ( ). When comparing the effects of these two treatment programs, it was observed that the intermittent pneumatic compression treatment group had a better outcome in terms of knee swelling ( ). Conclusions. According to the results, we could report that intermittent pneumatic compression therapy in addition to conventional treatment has significant positive effects on clinical outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis. We could also report that intermittent pneumatic compression therapy along with conventional treatment is superior to cold-pack therapy along with conventional treatment in terms of knee swelling in patients with knee osteoarthritis. This trial is registered with NCT03806322 .
Highlights
The title, introduction, results, and discussion suggest that the authors’ main focus in this study was knee swelling
While swelling is not uncommon, we respectfully believe this statement may be overstating the clinical importance of swelling in knee OA
To try and clarify this discrepancy, we looked up the study protocol, which stated that knee swelling and pain intensity were the primary outcome measures
Summary
The title, introduction, results, and discussion suggest that the authors’ main focus in this study was knee swelling. While swelling is not uncommon, we respectfully believe this statement may be overstating the clinical importance of swelling in knee OA. In the sample size calculation (Section 2.5 in the article), knee joint range of motion (ROM) was reported to be the primary outcome measure—this does not match the stated aims of the study.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
