Is Knee Joint Distraction a Viable Treatment Option for Knee OA?—A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Knee joint distraction (KJD) is a new application of an established technique to regenerate native cartilage using an external fixator. The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to determine whether KJD is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis and how results compare with established treatments. Studies assessing the outcomes of KJD were retrieved, with three studies (one cohort and two randomized controlled trials), 62 knees, meeting the inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was functional outcome, assessed using a validated outcome score, at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included pain scores, structural assessment of the joint, and adverse events. KJD is associated with improvements in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) from baseline to 1 year as well as reductions in pain scores and improvements in structural parameters assessed radiographically and by magnetic resonance imaging. KJD is not associated with decreased knee flexion, but is associated with a high risk of pin site infection. In patients aged 65 years or under at 1 year, no differences in WOMAC or pain scores was detected between patients managed with KJD compared with high tibial osteotomy or total knee arthroplasty. KJD may represent a potential treatment for knee arthritis, though further trials with longer term follow-up are required to establish its efficacy compared with contemporary treatments. This is a Level I (systematic review and meta-analysis) study.

Keywords

knee osteoarthritis - knee joint distraction - total knee arthroplasty - high tibial osteotomy - outcomes - complication

Ethical Approval

This is a systematic review so ethical approval was waived.

^* Thomas W. Hamilton is the senior co-author of the study.

• References

• 1 Cross M, Smith E, Hoy D. , et al. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73 (07) 1323-1330
• 2 Bijlsma JW, Berenbaum F, Lafeber FP. Osteoarthritis: an update with relevance for clinical practice. Lancet 2011; 377 (9783): 2115-2126
• 3 Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG. , et al; National Arthritis Data Workgroup. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58 (01) 26-35
• 4 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip and knee arthroplasty: annual report. 2010
• 5 Bayliss LE, Culliford D, Monk AP. , et al. The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 2017; 389 (10077): 1424-1430
• 6 Price AJ, Longino D, Rees J. , et al. Are pain and function better measures of outcome than revision rates after TKR in the younger patient?. Knee 2010; 17 (03) 196-199
• 7 Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB. , et al. A randomized, controlled trial of total knee replacement. N Engl J Med 2015; 373 (17) 1597-1606
• 8 Bernstein M, Reidler J, Fragomen A, Rozbruch SR. Ankle distraction arthroplasty: indications, technique, and outcomes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2017; 25 (02) 89-99
• 9 Sandvall BK, Cameron TE, Netscher DT, Epstein MJ, Staines KG, Petersen NJ. Basal joint osteoarthritis of the thumb: ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition versus hematoma distraction arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am 2010; 35 (12) 1968-1975
• 10 Lafeber FP, Intema F, Van Roermund PM, Marijnissen AC. Unloading joints to treat osteoarthritis, including joint distraction. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2006; 18 (05) 519-525
• 11 van der Woude JAD, Wiegant K, van Roermund PM. , et al. Five-year follow-up of knee joint distraction: clinical benefit and cartilaginous tissue repair in an open uncontrolled prospective study. Cartilage 2017; 8 (03) 263-271
• 12 van der Woude JA, Wiegant K, van Heerwaarden RJ. , et al. Knee joint distraction compared with total knee arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B (01) 51-58
• 13 van der Woude JAD, Wiegant K, van Heerwaarden RJ. , et al. Knee joint distraction compared with high tibial osteotomy: a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (03) 876-886
• 14 Wiegant K, van Roermund PM, Intema F. , et al. Sustained clinical and structural benefit after joint distraction in the treatment of severe knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21 (11) 1660-1667
• 15 Intema F, Van Roermund PM, Marijnissen AC. , et al. Tissue structure modification in knee osteoarthritis by use of joint distraction: an open 1-year pilot study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70 (08) 1441-1446
• 16 Deie M, Ochi M, Adachi N, Kajiwara R, Kanaya A. A new articulated distraction arthroplasty device for treatment of the osteoarthritic knee joint: a preliminary report. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (08) 833-838
• 17 Aly TA, Hafez K, Amin O. Arthrodiastasis for management of knee osteoarthritis. Orthopedics 2011; 34 (08) e338-e343
• 18 Wiegant K, Van Roermund PM, van Heerwaarden RJ. , et al. Total knee prosthesis after knee joint distraction treatment. J Surg Surgical Res 2015; 1: 66-71
• 19 van Valburg AA, van Roermund PM, Marijnissen AC. , et al. Joint distraction in treatment of osteoarthritis (II): effects on cartilage in a canine model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2000; 8 (01) 1-8
• 20 Karadam B, Karatosun V, Murat N, Ozkal S, Gunal I. No beneficial effects of joint distraction on early microscopical changes in osteoarthrotic knees. A study in rabbits. Acta Orthop 2005; 76 (01) 95-98
• 21 Kajiwara R, Ishida O, Kawasaki K, Adachi N, Yasunaga Y, Ochi M. Effective repair of a fresh osteochondral defect in the rabbit knee joint by articulated joint distraction following subchondral drilling. J Orthop Res 2005; 23 (04) 909-915
• 22 Yanai T, Ishii T, Chang F, Ochiai N. Repair of large full-thickness articular cartilage defects in the rabbit: the effects of joint distraction and autologous bone-marrow-derived mesenchymal cell transplantation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (05) 721-729
• 23 Nishino T, Ishii T, Chang F. , et al. Effect of gradual weight-bearing on regenerated articular cartilage after joint distraction and motion in a rabbit model. J Orthop Res 2010; 28 (05) 600-606
• 24 Nishino T, Chang F, Ishii T, Yanai T, Mishima H, Ochiai N. Joint distraction and movement for repair of articular cartilage in a rabbit model with subsequent weight-bearing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (07) 1033-1040
• 25 Wiegant K, Intema F, van Roermund PM. , et al. Evidence of cartilage repair by joint distraction in a canine model of osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015; 67 (02) 465-474
• 26 Chen Y, Sun Y, Pan X, Ho K, Li G. Joint distraction attenuates osteoarthritis by reducing secondary inflammation, cartilage degeneration and subchondral bone aberrant change. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2015; 23 (10) 1728-1735
• 27 Struik T, Jaspers JEN, Besselink NJ. , et al. Technical feasibility of personalized articulating knee joint distraction for treatment of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2017; 49: 40-47
• 28 Saltzman CL, Hillis SL, Stolley MP, Anderson DD, Amendola A. Motion versus fixed distraction of the joint in the treatment of ankle osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (11) 961-970
• 29 van der Woude JA, van Heerwaarden RJ, Spruijt S. , et al. Six weeks of continuous joint distraction appears sufficient for clinical benefit and cartilaginous tissue repair in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Knee 2016; 23 (05) 785-791
• 30 van der Woude JA, Welsing PM, van Roermund PM, Custers RJ, Kuchuk NO, Lafeber FP. Prediction of cartilaginous tissue repair after knee joint distraction. Knee 2016; 23 (05) 792-795
• 31 Jansen MP, Van der Weiden GS, Custers RJ. , et al. Long-term benefit and survival of knee joint distraction as treatment of severe knee osteoarthritis. OARSI World Congress; 2018 ; Liverpool, UK