Arthroscopic meniscectomy
Conditions
Interventions
This study design was a parallel, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, with allocation ratio 1:1, and it was approved by the Alcoitão School of Health Sciences ethics committee. The methods used
osteoarthritis greater than grade II
previous surgeries in the ipsilateral knee
unconsolidated fractures
partial or total amputation in upper or lower limbs
permanent or temporary dysfunctions of the central or peripheral nerve system. Subjects were randomly allocated in experimental and control groups. We used the block randomization to ensure balance in
Sponsors
Escola Superior de Saúde do Alcoitão
Escola Superior de Saúde do Alcoitão
Eligibility
Age
18 Years to 55 Years
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Both genders; Age between 18 and 55; underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy less than two weeks before beginning physiotherapy
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Concomitant anterior cruciate ligament injury; osteoarthritis greater than grade II; previous surgeries in the ipsilateral knee; unconsolidated fractures; partial or total amputation in upper or lower limbs; permanent or temporary dysfunctions of the central or peripheral nerve system
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Expected outcome 7: Increase in functionality verified with the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, with progression of the result between zero and one hundred in both groups, but with statistically significant differences between the groups (p value less than 0.05);Outcome found 7: Increased functionality in both groups, but without statistically significant differences between groups (p value greater than 0.05);Expected outcome 8: Pain reduction assessed with the Visual Analog Scale, with progression from ten to zero in both groups, but with statistically significant differences between groups (p value less than 0.05);Outcome found 8: Decreased pain in both groups, but without statistically significant differences between groups (p value greater than 0.05);Expected outcome 1: Increase in passive knee extension range of motion assessed with a digital inclinometer, with progression to zero degrees in both groups, but without statistically significant differences between groups (p value greater than 0.05);Outcome found 1: Increase in passive knee extension range of motion to zero degrees in both groups and without statistically significant differences between groups (p value greater than 0.05);Expected outcome 2: Increase in active knee extension range of motion assessed with a digital inclinometer, with progression to zero degrees in both groups, but with statistically significant differences between groups (p value less than 0.05);Outcome found 2: Increase in joint range of active knee extension in both groups with statistically significant differences between groups (p value less than 0.05);Expected outcome 3: Increase in quadriceps strength assessed with a manual dynamometer in a maximal voluntary isometric contraction at 90 degrees of knee flexion, in both groups, but with statistically significant differences between groups (p value less than 0.05);Outcome found 3: Increased quadriceps strength in both groups with statistically significant differences | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Secondary outcomes were not expected | — |
Countries
Portugal
Contacts
Public ContactManuel de Almeida
Escola Superior de Saúde do Alcoitão
Outcome results
None listed