Refine Search

New Search

Advanced search

Results: 37

(searched for: Osteoarthritis Treatment-The Newer Treatment Options)
Save to Scifeed
Page of 4
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Sciprofile linkAlexander E. Weber, Ioanna K. Bolia, Nicholas A. Trasolini
International Orthopaedics pp 1-10; doi:10.1007/s00264-020-04838-w

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Suresh Pandey
Journal of College of Medical Sciences-Nepal, Volume 16, pp 107-113; doi:10.3126/jcmsn.v16i2.28320

Abstract:
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common type of arthritis in the world characterized by articular cartilage degeneration with inflammatory components in ageing population. It involves about 10% of adult population and is among the most disabling disease condition. It is multifactorial in its etiology with a number of non-modifiable and modifiable risk factors. Ageing is the most important risk factor followed by obesity in probably genetically susceptible individuals. The end result of inflammation and articular cartilage degeneration arising from repeated overloading of joint, mechanical or biochemical imbalance of repair and degeneration affects not only joint cartilage but also subchondral bone and periarticular structures. Patient mainly presents with variable degree of pain, stiffness and functional limitation with or without swelling and deformity. Diagnosis is clinical and plain imaging is useful for documentation, to see the grading and plan the suitable treatment. There are a number of treatment options in practice each having their pros and cons but no single treatment method is superior to all. There is no cure for it but judicious use of non-pharmacological and pharmacological measures, often in combination in tailored fashion help to ease the patient’s symptoms. Operative intervention in the form of arthroplasty is reserved for end stage arthritis with disabling symptoms not responding with conservative management. Numerous newer treatment modalities are under different phases of clinical trial to test the efficacy and clinical use. Aim of this narrative review article is to analyze literatures obtained from electronic database and present the synthesized relevant clinical update on etiopathology, diagnosis and treatment modalities of symptomatic osteoarthritis.
Ana Velloso Alvarez, Lindsey H. Boone, Satyanarayana R. Pondugula, Fred Caldwell, Anne A. Wooldridge
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, Volume 7; doi:10.3389/fvets.2020.00323

Abstract:
Autologous conditioned serum (ACS) and autologous protein solution (APS) are newer therapeutic options for osteoarthritis (OA). Co-culture of cartilage and synovium stimulated with IL-1β produces a similar physiologic response to tissues from naturally-ocurring OA. The study objective was to investigate the effects of ACS, APS, and triamcinolone (TA) on inflammatory and catabolic gene expression of inflamed joint tissues in co-culture. Blood was collected and processed for ACS and APS from six horses. Cartilage and synovial explants were harvested from the stifle, placed in co-culture, and treated as: (1) unstimulated control (2) stimulated control (3) ACS at 25% v/v (4) ACS at 50% v/v (5) APS at 25% v/v (6) APS at 50% v/v, (7) TA (10−6 M). Treatment groups 2–7 were stimulated with IL-1β (10 ng/ml). Cultures were maintained for 96 hours, and then both media and explants were harvested for measurement of gene expression and protein. IL-1β stimulation significantly increased IL-1β (p = 0.029), IL-8 (p = 0.011) and MMP-3 (p = 0.043) expression in synovium and IL-1β (p = 0.003) and TNF-α (p = 0.001) expression in cartilage. Treatment with 50% ACS and APS v/v downregulated IL-1β expression in cartilage more than TA treatment (p = 0.001 and p = 0.0004) and APS downregulated MMP-1 expression in synovial membrane (p = 0.025). Treatment with ACS and APS caused a trend in upregulation of IL-10 expression in synovium and type II collagen and aggrecan expression in cartilage. PGE2 media concentrations were significantly reduced following treatment with APS (13.7-fold decrease, p = 0.0001) and ACS (4.13-fold decrease, p = 0.024); while TA did not reduce PGE2 significantly (2.3-fold decreased p = 0.406). As disease-modifying therapies, ACS and APS modified the cellular response from synovial membrane and articular cartilage. ACS and APS may offer an improved strategy to improve clinical signs of horses with naturally occurring OA, compared to TA treatment.
Sunny Trivedi, William Fang, Ishan Ayyalasomayajula, Sciprofile linkC. Thomas Vangsness
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, Volume 21, pp 557-566; doi:10.1080/14656566.2020.1718649

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Austin M. Looney, Joseph Daniel Leider, Andrew Ryan Horn, Sciprofile linkBlake M. Bodendorfer
Published: 1 January 2020
SAGE Open Medicine, Volume 8; doi:10.1177/2050312120921057

Abstract:
Injuries involving the anterior cruciate ligament are among the most common athletic injuries, and are the most common involving the knee. The anterior cruciate ligament is a key translational and rotational stabilizer of the knee joint during pivoting and cutting activities. Traditionally, surgical intervention in the form of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has been recommended for those who sustain an anterior cruciate ligament rupture and wish to remain active and return to sport. The intra-articular environment of the anterior cruciate ligament makes achieving successful healing following repair challenging. Historically, results following repair were poor, and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction emerged as the gold-standard for treatment. While earlier literature reported high rates of return to play, the results of more recent studies with longer follow-up have suggested that anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction may not be as successful as once thought: fewer athletes are able to return to sport at their preinjury level, and many still go on to develop osteoarthritis of the knee at a relatively younger age. The four principles of tissue engineering (cells, growth factors, scaffolds, and mechanical stimuli) combined in various methods of bioaugmentation have been increasingly explored in an effort to improve outcomes following surgical treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Newer technologies have also led to the re-emergence of anterior cruciate ligament repair as an option for select patients. The different biological challenges associated with anterior cruciate ligament repair and reconstruction each present unique opportunities for targeted bioaugmentation strategies that may eventually lead to better outcomes with better return-to-play rates and fewer revisions.
Karan Jindal, Sandeep Patel, MandeepS Dhillon
Journal of Musculoskeletal Surgery and Research; doi:10.4103/jmsr.jmsr_64_20

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
L. A. Pederzini, F. Di Palma
Surgical Techniques for Trauma and Sports Related Injuries of the Elbow pp 181-184; doi:10.1007/978-3-662-58931-1_21

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Sciprofile linkLaurent Galois, Julien Hemmer, Victor Ray, François Sirveaux
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, Volume 30, pp 57-65; doi:10.1007/s00590-019-02528-x

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Navin Kumar Devaraj
Fortune Journal of Rheumatology, Volume 1; doi:10.26502/fjr.2688009

Christopher George Ghazala, Jaime Candal-Couto
Published: 1 June 2018
Orthopaedics and Trauma, Volume 32, pp 171-177; doi:10.1016/j.mporth.2018.03.005

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Page of 4
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Back to Top Top