Therapeutic Effect of Whole Body Vibration on Chronic Knee Osteoarthritis

Abstract

ObjectiveTo investigate the effect on pain reduction and strengthening of the whole body vibration (WBV) in chronic knee osteoarthritis (OA).MethodsPatients were randomly divided into two groups: the study group (WBV with home based exercise) and control group (home based exercise only). They performed exercise and training for 8 weeks. Eleven patients in each group completed the study. Pain intensity was measured with the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), functional scales were measured with Korean Western Ontario McMaster score (KWOMAC) and Lysholm Scoring Scale (LSS), quadriceps strength was measured with isokinetic torque and isometric torque and dynamic balance was measured with the Biodex Stability System. These measurements were performed before training, at 1 month after training and at 2 months after training.ResultsNRS was significantly decreased in each group, and change of pain intensity was significantly larger in the study group than in the control group after treatment. Functional improvements in KWOMAC and LSS were found in both groups, but no significant differences between the groups after treatment. Dynamic balance, isokinetic strength of right quadriceps and isometric strengths of both quadriceps muscles improved in both groups, but no significant differences between the groups after treatment. Isokinetic strength of left quadriceps did not improve in both groups after treatment.ConclusionIn chronic knee OA patients, WBV reduced pain intensity and increased strength of the right quadriceps and dynamic balance performance. In comparison with the home based exercise program, WBV was superior only in pain reduction and similarly effective in strengthening of the quadriceps muscle and balance improvement.

Laboratory-based measurement of standing balance in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review

“…Total ( OA Group: 397.14 1420 (480) Pain group: 20.6 (1.5) Asymptomatic OA group: 33.6 (5.1) Asymptomatic OA group: 27.5 (1.3) Symptomatic OA group: 46.6 (6.0) (Khalaj et al, 2014). One study did not report if the standing surface was set to soft or firm, this study reported index values of 2.12 to 2.32 for AP and 1.64 to 2.9 for ML (Park et al, 2013). One study found a significant increase in overall stability index values between K/L grades three and two and healthy controls: 1.05 vs. 0.80 vs. 0.65 for a standardized DLS (firm) (P = 0.035); 0.85 vs. 0.64 vs. 0.56 for a functional DLS (firm) (P = 0.015); 1.8 vs. 1.70 vs. 1.15 for a standardized DLS (level 8) (P = 0.004); and 1.80 vs. 1.70 vs. 1.11 for a functional DLS (level 8) (P = 0.009) (Khalaj et al, 2014).…”

“…Stability index values are calculated along the AP and ML axes as well as overall stability, and represents the variance of platform displacement from level (higher index values = more motion). Five studies reported BSS data for AP, ML and overall stability (Gstoettner et al, 2011;Hsieh and Lee, 2014;Hsieh et al, 2013;Khalaj et al, 2014;Park et al, 2013) (Table 3). Two additional studies reported on overall stability only (Cho and Hwang, 2013;Hsieh et al, 2012), for a total of seven studies.…”

“…All studies used either DOF or DOS (stability level 6 or 8) tasks for 20 or 30 s (or unreported (Hsieh et al, 2013;Hsieh and Lee, 2014;Hsieh et al, 2012)); one study assessed both a functional stance and a standardized stance to control for confounding due to foot placement (Khalaj et al, 2014), while another had participants keep their feet together (Cho and Hwang, 2013). Index values for DOS tasks ranged from 0.5 to 1.18 for AP (Gstoettner et al, 2011;Hsieh and Lee, 2014;Hsieh et al, 2013;Khalaj et al, 2014;Park et al, 2013), 0.4 to 2.3 for ML (Gstoettner et al, 2011;Hsieh and Lee, 2014;Hsieh et al, 2013;Khalaj et al, 2014;Park et al, 2013), and 0.6 to 3.4 overall (Cho and Hwang, 2013;Gstoettner et al, 2011;Hsieh and Lee, 2014;Hsieh et al, 2012;Hsieh et al, 2013;Khalaj et al, 2014;Park et al, 2013). One study reported on a DOF task, finding index values of 0.44 to 0.65 for AP, 0.36 to 0.49 for ML, and 0.64 to 1.05 overall Table 2 Quality index scores.…”

The Effect of WBV on Balance, Mobility and Strength in Aging Adults: A Systematic Review

“…Some of the previous studies have briefed in some outcomes as: improvement in balance [21], increases in bone mineral density [22], increased blood circulation [23], reduction in pain level [24], increased muscle strength and power [25] and in special cases like in knee osteoarthritis [26], scoliosis [27], spinal problems [28], cardiovascular issues, stroke cases, multiple sclerosis [29], Parkinson's disease [30], osteopenia, diabetes mellitus [31], rewardingly improvement in overall health of the person. Furthermore, for inactive and elderly, it is the best solution to improve health and quality of life.…”

“…In addition, several parameters to study includes: vibration frequency (f), amplitude (a), magnitude (m) and time duration (T). Various directions can be focused as per desire like: effect of WBV can be checked for physiological changes [8], reduction in pathologies [9], musculoskeletal health [10][11][12], pain relief, balance or for macro n micro circulation [13]. The reason behind labeling WBV as an alternative to exercise and physical activity is the working principle of WBV and exercise, to increase exercise intensity the mass (M) is further increased and the working of resistive exercise lies upon M, nevertheless working of WBC lies upon acceleration (A) [14,15] and changes in it and specified by 'Isaac Newton' , it works upon 'law of motion' [16].…”