Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Sep 5;7(9):e015927.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015927.

Systematic review of the evidence on orthotic devices for the management of knee instability related to neuromuscular and central nervous system disorders

Catriona McDaid  1 , Debra Fayter  2 , Alison Booth  1 , Joanne O'Connor  2 , Rocio Rodriguez-Lopez  3 , Dorothy McCaughan  1 , Roy Bowers  4 , Cynthia P Iglesias  1 , Simon Lalor  5 , Rory J O'Connor  6 , Margaret Phillips  7 , Gita Ramdharry  8   9
Affiliations

Systematic review of the evidence on orthotic devices for the management of knee instability related to neuromuscular and central nervous system disorders

Catriona McDaid et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of orthotic devices for the management of instability of the knee in adults with a neuromuscular disorder or central nervous system disorder.

Design: A systematic review of primary studies.

Setting: Community.

Participants: Adults with a neuromuscular disorder or central nervous system disorder and impaired walking ability due to instability of the knee.

Interventions: Orthoses with the clinical aim of controlling knee instability, for example, knee-ankle-foot orthoses, ankle-foot orthoses and knee orthoses or mixed design with no restrictions in design or material.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: Condition-specific or generic patient-reported outcome measures assessing function, disability, independence, activities of daily living, quality of life or psychosocial outcomes; pain; walking ability; functional assessments; biomechanical analysis; adverse effects; usage; patient satisfaction and the acceptability of a device; and resource utilisation data.

Results: Twenty-one studies including 478 patients were included. Orthotic devices were evaluated in patients with postpolio syndrome, poststroke syndrome, inclusion body myositis and spinal cord injury. The review included 2 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 3 non-randomised controlled studies and 16 case series. Most were small, single-centre studies with only 6 of 21 following patients for 1 year or longer. They met between one and five of nine quality criteria and reported methods and results poorly. They mainly assessed outcomes related to gait analysis and energy consumption with limited use of standardised, validated, patient-reported outcome measures. There was an absence of evidence on outcomes of direct importance to patients such as reduction in pain and falls.

Conclusions: There is a need for high-quality research, particularly RCTs, of orthotic devices for knee instability related to neuromuscular and central nervous system conditions. This research should address outcomes important to patients. There may also be value in developing a national registry.

Registration number systematic review: PROSPERO (CRD42014010180).

Keywords: central nervous system disorder; knee instability; neuromuscular disease; orthotic devices; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: During this study, SL was an employee of Opcare, a company that provides orthotic and prosthetic services to the UK NHS. This company does not manufacture orthotic devices, although a sister company ORTHO C FAB does. CPI is a member of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Medical Technologies Assessment Committee and member of the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. O'Connor J, McCaughan D, McDaid C, et al. . Orthotic management of instability of the knee related to neuromuscular and central nervous system disorders: systematic review, qualitative study, survey and costing analysis. Health Technol Assess 2016;20:1–262.10.3310/hta20550 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hebert JS. Ambulatory KAFOs: a physiatry perspective. J Prosthet Orthot 2006;18:P169–P174.10.1097/00008526-200606001-00004 - DOI
    1. Edelstein J, Bruckner J. Orthotics: a comprhensive clinical approach. New Jersey, USA: Slack Incorporated, 2002.
    1. Campbell JH. Linked hip-knee-ankle-foot orthoses designed for reciprocal gait. J Prosthet Orthot 2006;18(Proceedings):P204–P208.10.1097/00008526-200606001-00011 - DOI
    1. Higgins J, Altman D, Sterne J. Assessing risk of bias in included studies : Higgins J, Grees S, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. updated March 2011.

Publication types

MeSH terms