Sensory-motor training versus resistance training among patients with knee osteoarthritis: randomized single-blind controlled trial

• Autor(a) principal: Gomiero, Aline Bassoli [UNIFESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2018
• Outros Autores: Kayo, Andrea [UNIFESP], Abraao, Marcelo [UNIFESP], Peccin, Maria Stella [UNIFESP], Grande, Antonio Jose, Trevisani, Virginia Fernandes [UNIFESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2017.0174100917; https://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/53788
• topic: Osteoarthritis; Knee; Exercise; Pain; Randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis of the knee is defined as a progressive disease of the synovial joints and is characterized by failure of joint damage repair. The objective here was to compare the effectiveness of sensory-motor training versus resistance training among patients with knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, single-blinded controlled trial conducted at the outpatient service of the University of Santo Amaro. METHODS: A total of 64 patients were randomly assigned to sensory-motor training or resistance training. The evaluations were performed at baseline and 16 weeks after the intervention and included pain evaluation on a visual analogue scale, isometric quadriceps femoris force measurement using a dynamometer, Timed Up and Go test, Tinetti balance scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, and the SF-36 quality-of-life questionnaire. Data analysis was performed using analysis of variance with repeated measurements and Cohen's effect size. RESULTS: Sensory-motor training may be a plausible alternative and showed a small effect on pain and a medium effect on maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Resistance training showed a small effect on balance and a medium effect on mobility. CONCLUSION: Resistance training and sensory motor training for the lower limbs among patients with knee osteoarthritis seemed to present similar effects on pain and function. However, because there was a considerable risk of type 2 error, further randomized clinical trials are still needed to provide a sound conclusion.