Next Article in Journal
Gender Differences among Healthcare Providers in the Promotion of Patient-, Person- and Family-Centered Care—And Its Implications for Providing Quality Healthcare
Next Article in Special Issue
Validity and Reliability of a Non-Radiographic Postural Analysis Device Based on an RGB-Depth Camera Comparing EOS 3D Imaging: A Prospective Observational Study
Previous Article in Journal
Health Status and Activity Discomfort among Elderly Drivers: Reality of Health Awareness
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Combined Effect of the Trapezius Muscle Strengthening and Pectoralis Minor Muscle Stretching on Correcting the Rounded Shoulder Posture and Shoulder Flexion Range of Motion among Young Saudi Females: A Randomized Comparative Study
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Effect of an Integrated Physiotherapy Protocol on Knee Osteoarthritis Patients: A Preliminary Study

Department of Physiotherapy, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi 110062, India
Department of Biotechnology, SCLS, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi 110062, India
Department of Toxicology, SCLS, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi 110062, India
Department of Molecular Medicine, SIST, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi 110062, India
Department of Physiology, Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, New Delhi 110062, India
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2023, 11(4), 564;
Received: 28 November 2022 / Revised: 6 February 2023 / Accepted: 6 February 2023 / Published: 14 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation and Therapy)


Background: Exercise therapy can potentially relieve symptoms and improve functional status of the knee osteoarthritis population. Despite the proved practical benefits, there is no standard, comprehensive physiotherapeutic protocol available targeting the physical and physiological impairment cluster associated with disease. Osteoarthritis is a whole joint disease, affecting joint cartilage, ligaments, menisci and joint associated muscles, from variable pathophysiological processes. Hence, there is a need to develop a physiotherapy protocol to address the multi-structural physical, physiological and functional impairments associated with the disease. Objective: The objective of the present study is to evaluate the efficacy of designed, therapist supervised, patient education, progressive resistance exercises, passive stretching exercises, soft tissue manipulation, muscle energy technique, Maitland mobilization, aerobic exercise, and neuromuscular training physiotherapy protocol on pain, disability, balance, and physical functional performance in knee osteoarthritis patients. Methodology: The preliminary study was conducted on a (n = 60) sample of convenience. The samples were randomly allocated into two study groups, intervention, and control group. The control group was advised on a basic home program. On the other hand, the treatment of the intervention group was designed with a therapist supervised Physiotherapy Protocol. The outcome variables studied were the Visual Analogue Scale, Modified WOMAC Scale, Timed Up and Go Test, Functional Reach Test, 40 m Fast Paced Walk Test, Stair Climb Test, 30 s Chair Stand Test. Results: The results of the study revealed a significant improvement among most of the studied outcome measures in the intervention group, hence the designed supervised physiotherapy protocol was found effective in relieving multiple physiological impairments associated with this whole joint disease.

1. Introduction

Osteoarthritis, is the most common articular disease, predicted to be the fourth leading cause of disability worldwide [1]. In the majority, the disease accounts for knees, hips, hands, facets, and feet joint impairments, however, of the total disease burden, the knee joint accounts for 83% [2]. Osteoarthritis of the knee joint significantly affects quality of life, morbidity, mortality and is reported to negatively impact the economic status of the affected population [3]. In 2020, a global prevalence of 16% was reported in the population aged fifteen years and over, and 22.9% of the population (654.1 million people) aged forty years and over [4]. In India the reported prevalence of osteoarthritis of the knee joint among the population over fifty years old, was 17–61% [5]. In the population with osteoarthritis of the knee joint, pain and impaired function are the main highlighted problems that cause mobility impairments, that renders difficulty in carrying out daily life activities, resulting in poor quality of life [6]. The sufferers also presented impaired proprioception, that could potentially hamper individual’s postural stability and increase fall risk [7,8,9,10].
Currently, we do not have any therapy that could address all of the pathological structures involved [11]. There are some management strategies available which target different phenotypic components of the disease. The limited utility of some of the treatment options, comparative to the disadvantages and complications associated, are a matter of concern. Gene therapy, a novel approach, is still under evaluation. [11]. Additionally, joint replacement surgeries are quite cumbersome procedures, expensive for patients’, and associated with various complications as well as requiring tertiary care services. India, being a developing country, has tertiary care that is mostly out of the reach of common people. The recommendations given by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), suggested more focused research work to achieve promising therapies or strategies to combat knee osteoarthritis. Therefore, special attention was drawn towards non cartilaginous tissues, intra articular structural interactions, early disease progression, and pathogenesis of disease associated pain to achieve effective treatment strategies [12].
There are various studies that suggested many strategies, but none of the strategies have a holistic approach. In one of the studies, the exercise therapy alone potentially relieved symptoms and improved functional status of the knee osteoarthritis population [13,14]. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) suggested aerobic fitness and strengthening exercises [13,15]. The Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) suggested two types of land-based structured exercise programs i.e., balance or neuromuscular training and/or strengthening and/or cardio or secondly mind-body exercises [13,16]. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) suggested aquatic, aerobic and/or resistance exercises [13,17]. The Ottawa panel suggested strengthening exercises with or without other types of exercises, aerobic exercises with or without strengthening exercises, and mind-body exercises [13,18,19,20]. For managing knee joints, the EULAR suggested speeding up activity and exercise in general [13,21].
Despite the proven practical benefits, there is no standard, comprehensive physiotherapy protocol available targeting the physical and physiological impairment cluster associated with the disease. Since, osteoarthritis is a whole joint disease affecting joint cartilage, ligaments, menisci and muscles, from variable pathophysiological processes, it requires a holistic approach to address all components of osteoarthritis [22]. Although a number of protocols are available for the foreign population, the Indian population are unable to be treated under the same umbrella. The Indian population as well as interacting environmental characteristics are not the same as the foreign population, consequently the protocols used by them cannot be implied to treat the Indian population. The Indian population is highly tolerant, on top of that, the physical environment including the residential and working environment is challenging. The tolerance of the Indian population can be reflected in their ability to ignore pain and their delayed treatment seeking behavior.
The delay in the disease management causes advancement in the pathology which renders progressive involvement of various articular and peri-articular structures, causing multiple impairments like pain, balance impairment, functional limitation and disability. Hence, there is a need of an integrated physiotherapy protocol for the Indian population, to address the multistructural involvement of the diseased knee joint and help to manage the pain, impaired balance, functional limitation and disability.
The current study aims to provide an integrated physiotherapy protocol for Indian knee osteoarthritis patients that targets the provision of a holistic approach to manage physical and physiological impairments associated with the different structures of the involved knee joint. The approach we are reporting in this study is not only efficient in combatting osteoarthritis but is also cost effective, and would be easily available for the population.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The preliminary study with analysis by protocol, consisted of a sample of convenience of sixty participants who were randomly allocated into two groups, the intervention group (n = 30) and control group (n = 30). To randomly allocate participants to the intervention and control group; well-shuffled, identical chits having names of all sixty participants were kept in a jar. An individual, who was not a part of the study, was asked to draw one chit at a time from the jar and put that into one of two bowls, each bowl, respectively, marked as the Intervention or Control Group. The two study groups were kept homogeneous. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi, India. Written informed consent was taken from all participant patients before their participation in the study.

2.2. Participants

The patient sample pool was selected from the knee osteoarthritic patients referred to the Rehabilitation Center, Jamia Hamdard from Hakeem Abdul Hameed Centenary Hospital, HIMSR, Jamia Hamdard. The included age group was forty-five to sixty years. Clinically, diagnostic confirmation of knee osteoarthritis was performed according to American College of Rheumatology criteria. Patients having a history of ligament and/or meniscal injury at the level of the knee joint; history of fracture in the last six months; history of cancer; history of other systemic diseases; history of metabolic diseases; history of infectious diseases; history of neuromuscular diseases; patients who had undergone knee joint replacement surgery or had been injected intra-articularly with corticosteroid at the level of the knee joint, within a period of six months; pregnant or lactating women; known cases of ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteomalacia, Paget’s disease. Subjects having body mass index greater than thirty-five; subjects having osteoarthritis higher than grade-II; patients involved in or about to participate in any other structured lower limb strengthening program were all excluded.

2.3. Intervention

Individuals in the control group were given handouts of a basic home program containing knee isometric exercises with self-stretching exercises for quadriceps femoris, hamstrings, gastro-soleus and precautionary advice of Dos and Don’ts regarding knee osteoarthritis. The intervention group was administered with a designed therapist supervised PEPSMAN physiotherapy protocol, consisting of Patient Education, Progressive resistance exercise, passive Stretching exercises and Soft Tissue Manipulation (STM), Muscle Energy Technique (MET) and Maitland mobilization, aerobic exercise, and neuromuscular training, three sessions per week for four weeks.
The patients’ education session was conducted once a week during the entire study period, hence a total of four education sessions were conducted. Each education session was planned accordingly, so that the next session was a progressive series of the previous one. Each individualized session was for a one-and-a-half-hour period. The sessions were conducted in a well-lit, ventilated, comfortable environment without interference of any external disturbances. The first session was aimed at providing elaborated knowledge of the disease to the patient, understanding the patients’ beliefs related to the disease, and his/her condition. The first session consisted of a detailed explanation of what knee osteoarthritis is, its etiological factors, related articular and periarticular changes, need for treatment, importance of precautions, importance of physiotherapy and role of our protocol; everything was discussed in layman terms. The second session was aimed at motivating patients, correcting his/her misbeliefs, negative experiences, and false expectations.
In the third session, the patient was again motivated by discussing the further achievements, and patient experienced improvements. The learnings from the second session were further intensified by discussing what patients’ false expectations were and correct information was given to the patients and the problems were tackled accordingly. The last session comprised of bushing up on the learnings of all the previous three sessions. The aim of this session was to impart knowledge regarding future aspects and practices like, maintenance of precautions, practical Dos and Don’ts, importance of regularly practicing prescribed physical activity, dangerous ill effects of treatment avoidance and health negligence, importance of healthy weight management, strategies for maintaining healthy lifestyles, ergonomics, and the importance of regular follow-up.
The elaborative explanation of the intervention program is mentioned in Table 1. During the study, none of the subjects undertook any chondroprotective-anti-inflammatory intra-articular agent or physiotherapy program other than the prescribed one.

2.4. Outcome Measure

Primary outcome measures assessed were, pain intensity, assessed through the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), The visual analogue scale represent a straight-line describing the limits of pain, the two ends of the line reflect two extremes of pain, no pain at all and worst pain [33,34]. With respect to the subjective nature of the pain, the patient was asked to mark the perceived pain level on the scale [34] during pre-test and post-test examination. The difference between the two differently reported points on the scale by an individual at different points of time, reflected the real variation in pain magnitude [34,35,36].
The modified Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index was utilized to assess functional mobility, quality of life, and activities of daily living [37]. The index was administered to the participants and the participants were asked to report the index accordingly, during the pre-test and post-test evaluation periods.
The timed Up and Go test (TUG) was conducted during the pre-test and post-test period, to assess dynamic steady state balance of the participants [38]. Time taken by the subject to get up from the arm support-less chair, walking five meters at self-selected speed, returning, and occupying sitting a position again over the chair; was measured to serve this purpose.
The functional reach test (FRT) was also intended to assess dynamic steady state balance [38]. The participants were asked to stand initially with an outstretched arm with a fist hand, the initial position of the knuckle of the third metacarpal was marked, then he/she was asked to attain a final position of maximal forward reach by leaning forward from the initial position without changing the base of support. The distance between the initial and final position of the knuckle of the third metacarpal was measured to serve the assessment purpose.
The forty meter fast paced walk test (40 m FPWT), was administered at both the pre-test and post-test evaluation period with an intention to assess the paced walking ability over short distances, ability to change direction, and speed during a short distance walk [39]. The participants were asked to walk speedily and safely on a ten-meter pathway, the end of the pathway was marked by a cone around which participants must turn around and return to the starting point marked with another cone, the activity was repeated to cover a forty-meter walkway in one go, without running [39]. Time was recorded from initiation to completion of the walking activity to measure the speed of the walk [39].
The stair climb test (SCT), assesses the strength and balance of the lower body, it also focusses on the ability of the individual to ascend or descend stairs [39]. In the pre-test and post-test measurement period the participants were asked to ascend a flight of stairs of nine steps and eight-inch step height at each step, then turn and descend back to the ground, the activity was asked to be performed in a quick and safe way [39]. The timing was recorded from initial position (both feet on the ground) to final position (both the feet on the ground again) [39].
The thirty second chair stand test (30 s-CST), was administered to assess the dynamic balance and strength of the lower body, it also emphasizes the individual’s sit to stand activity [39]. For assessment purposes the participants were asked to cross his/her arms over their chest, in a sitting position on a seventeen-inch high (seat height) chair with knees flexed at 90 degrees and feet resting on the ground at shoulder width apart [39]. The participants were asked to stand up and sit down repeatedly for thirty seconds, the number of repetitions made were recorded [39]. The measurement was carried out in the pre-test and post-test period [39].

2.5. Statistical Analyses

The analysis of the data was performed using SPSS Software Version 19 (SPSS Statistics: IBM Corporative, Chicago, IL, USA). To test the normality of the data, the Shapiro–Wilk Test was utilized. After satisfying the ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) assumptions using Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances (p > 0.05), the ANCOVA analysis was performed (Confidence Interval: 95%). Data was considered statistically significant if p < 0.05.

3. Results

Out of 65 subjects recruited in the preliminary study, three patients from the control group dropped out for a total knee replacement procedure during the study, the intervention group experienced two dropouts due to unavoidable reasons, hence a total of 30 subjects in each control and intervention group completed the study program. The characteristics of the subjects are described in Table 2. The flow of the participants during the study is represented in Figure 1.
The overall significance for the chosen factor i.e., PEPSMAN, in the test of between-subject effects and pairwise comparison was found to be statistically significant. Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 and Figure 2 demonstrates statistical superiority of the independent variable through ANCOVA statistics, hence the administered intervention protocol, consisting of a combination of exercise therapy and manual therapy is found significantly effective in the management of knee osteoarthritis patients, however in case of the stair climb test and functional reach test, the data showed non-significant results. Additionally, the data showed evidence for aging as a factor impacting the slow response of the administered protocol.

4. Discussion

The purpose of conducting a preliminary study is to determine the medicinal potential of the designed therapist supervised PEPSMAN physiotherapy protocol in an Indian knee osteoarthritis population to relieve pain; improve static balance, dynamic balance, physical functional performance and hence, disability. Patient education is evidenced to have an important role in progressive diseases like osteoarthritis where the sufferers started surviving in a restricted environment that leads to poor social interactions [13,40,41,42]. Disturbed social health could potentially contribute to disturbances in mental and physical health. Recent studies supported administration of proper patient education to facilitate better management of disease [13]. Exercise therapy is a well-studied and accepted therapeutic strategy to improve the knee osteoarthritic diseased state, however, the work done in exploring the therapeutic potential of manual therapy alone and in combination with exercise therapy for the disease is scarce.
An administered, designed, therapist supervised PEPSMAN physiotherapy protocol i.e., combination of patient education, exercise therapy and manual therapy was found to have a significant therapeutic role in improvement of static balance, dynamic balance, pain, physical functional performance, and disability in patients with knee osteoarthritis. The result is evident in intervention data of the samples obtained after four weeks. The intervention group presented a significantly promising impact of the protocol, however, aging emerged as a potential factor that could slow down the therapeutic effect of the administered intervention. Aging being a common contributing factor of osteoarthritis, is well known to progressively cause cell senescence, altered apoptosis, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and homeostatic dysfunction; resultantly, the connective tissues comprising joints turned stiff, fragile and dehydrated. The continuum of deleterious changes associated with aging might be the reason for a delayed positive improvement with the protocol in the advanced age group, compared to the younger ones.
The analysis with respect to functional reach test and stair climb test unfolds a non-significant result. The functional reach test is a measure of balance. Although the outcome measure of balance is widely utilized in cases of lower limb impairments, the balance is not unique to the function of the lower extremities, it is an integrated function of lower limb and trunk stabilizers. The administered program was only targeting lower extremities; however, the trunk region was spared, hence this could be the possible reason of demonstrating an insignificant result in comparison to the other outcome measures of interest. In the case of the stair climb test, the reason behind the insignificant result is unknown, however, it is a matter of future research, hence studies focusing on the same area will be highly appreciated.
Though pain relief was obtained in both groups, the comparative improvement in pain between the two groups was not that significant. Exercise therapy and manual therapy individually, proved efficient to contribute to the symptomatic relief of the disease. Knee osteoarthritis being a chronic condition involves a psychological component of pain. Subjective belief and satisfaction could be the possible reasons behind the presented non-significant difference between the two groups, tested at the end of the study.
Static and dynamic balance improved significantly in the intervention group in comparison to the control group. The physiotherapeutic exercises and therapy administered to the intervention group was designed to improve muscle strength, flexibility, conditioning and joint proprioception, the improvement of these parameters might have potentially resulted in the improvement in balance of respective samples.
Functional performance and disability were investigated in the study with an intention to improve clinical practices of concern, to achieve patients’ independence and better life quality. With the administered protocol the intervention group achieved a significant improvement compared to the pre-test scores and control group, the potential mechanism behind the improved scores streamlines with symptomatic relief, improved muscle conditioning, joint sense and balance that was achieved with exercise therapy and manual therapy.
The result of the preliminary study is consistent with the study of Deyle et al., 2000, which demonstrated the effectiveness of supervised exercise program in achieving functional improvement in the knee osteoarthritis population when provided in combination with manual therapy [43]. Ko et al., 2009, made a favorable statement in a study that dealt with a knee osteoarthritis population, when they reflected a comparatively higher efficacy of a combination regimen of manual therapy and resistive exercise, than a regimen consisting of resistance exercise alone, in terms of bringing improvement in proprioception, functional performance and muscle strength [44]. Abbott et al., 2015, also presented supportive evidence by concluding the improved effectiveness of exercise therapy, with the addition of manual therapy [26].
The result of Abbott et al. 2013, was found to be contradictory to that of the current study. Abbott et al., 2013, concluded that exercise therapy and manual therapy when given in combination, in a single protocol was not found to be efficacious in relieving symptoms and improving function in a knee or hip osteoarthritis population, though exercise therapy or manual therapy when administered in isolation was evidently effective [45]. In the study conducted by Abbott et al., 2013, a recommendation was made pointing towards an antagonistic effect of exercise therapy and manual therapy, quoting it as potential reason for the contradictory result [45]. The current study revolves around a constructive approach with a background belief of summating the individual benefit of the combination of the administered individual therapies.

4.1. Strength of the Study

Many studies have investigated the effect of exercise therapy in knee osteoarthritis populations, however dealing with manual therapy the availability of literature is quite limited, hence the current study intended to contribute to the literature evidencing the impact of manual therapy. The study faced the COVID-19 pandemic era, irrespective of the challenging circumstances the sample size was attempted to be kept as high as possible, to have significant results. During the conduction of the study, special care was maintained to achieve allocation concealment. An individual alien to the study, performed participant allocation and the individuals’ taking the measurements were blinded to the source group of subjects. Several outcome measures were included in the study for the purpose of evaluating the variation of dependent variables. The study provides a complete evidence-based protocol to be practiced in the Indian knee osteoarthritis population to improve the diseased state.

4.2. Limitations of the Study

The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic period, the period imposed a greater limitation in terms of availability of the samples, laboratories, and rehabilitation center. The study faced dropouts and was unable to include follow up due to difficulty in contacting patients because of the pandemic restrictions. Latest outcome measure tools with advanced technology were not included in the study because of limited accessibility of the resources.

4.3. Recommendations for Future Studies

There is a great need for good evidence to support the efficacy of non-pharmacology based, safer and cost-effective interventions. Future studies with a similar approach should be conducted with more advanced measurement techniques on larger sample sizes.

Author Contributions

All the participating authors (S.A.K., P.P., M.A.A., S.P., N.F. and I.A.) participated in the designing and framing of the study, collecting the data, analyzing the data and drafting of the manuscript. There were no disputes regarding any aspects among authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi, India (15 May 2018).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the results reported in this paper can be freely accessed on request from the corresponding author, kindly consider [email protected] for any required information regarding this research paper.


The authors are grateful to all the volunteers participated in the study, the staff members and all those who are related to the study in any means.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Murray, C.J.; Vos, T.; Lozano, R.; Naghavi, M.; Flaxman, A.D.; Michaud, C.; Ezzati, M.; Shibuya, K.; Salomon, J.A.; Abdalla, S.; et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012, 380, 2197–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Vos, T.; Flaxman, A.D.; Naghavi, M.; Lozano, R.; Michaud, C.; Ezzati, M.; Shibuya, K.; Salomon, J.A.; Abdalla, S.; Aboyans, V.; et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012, 380, 2163–2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Briggs, A.M.; Cross, M.J.; Hoy, D.G.; Sanchez-Riera, L.; Blyth, F.M.; Woolf, A.D.; March, L. Musculoskeletal health conditions represent a global threat to healthy aging: A report for the 2015 World Health Organization world report on ageing and health. Gerontologist 2016, 56 (Suppl. 2), S243–S255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cui, A.; Li, H.; Wang, D.; Zhong, J.; Chen, Y.; Lu, H. Global, regional prevalence, incidence and risk factors of knee osteoarthritis in population-based studies. EClinicalMedicine 2020, 29, 100587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kaur, R.; Sharma, V.L.; Singh, A. Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis and its correlation in women of rural and urban parts of Hoshiarpur (Punjab). J. Postgrad. Med. Educ. Res. 2015, 49, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Odole, A.C.; Ogunlana, M.O.; Adegoke, B.O.; Ojonima, F.; Useh, U. Depression, pain and physical function in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: Implications for interprofessional care. Niger. J. Med. Rehabil. 2015, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Knoop, J.; Steultjens, M.P.; Van der Leeden, M.; Van der Esch, M.; Thorstensson, C.A.; Roorda, L.D.; Lems, W.F.; Dekker, J. Proprioception in knee osteoarthritis: A narrative review. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2011, 19, 381–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bascuas, I.; Tejero, M.; Monleón, S.; Boza, R.; Muniesa, J.M.; Belmonte, R. Balance 1 year after TKA: Correlation with clinical variables. Orthopedics 2013, 36, e6–e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sharma, L.; Pai, Y.C.; Holtkamp, K.; Rymer, W.Z. Is knee joint proprioception worse in the arthritic knee versus the unaffected knee in unilateral knee osteoarthritis? Arthritis Rheum. Off. J. Am. Coll. Rheumatol. 1997, 40, 1518–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Khalaj, N.; Abu Osman, N.A.; Mokhtar, A.H.; Mehdikhani, M.; Wan Abas, W.A. Balance and risk of fall in individuals with bilateral mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e92270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  11. Susanne, G.; Dominique, M. Recent advances in the treatment of osteoarthritis. F1000Research 2020, 9, F1000 Faculty Rev-325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Felson, D.T. Priorities for osteoarthritis research: Much to be done. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 2014, 10, 447–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Dantas, L.O.; de Fátima Salvini, T.; McAlindon, T.E. Knee osteoarthritis: Key treatments and implications for physical therapy. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2021, 25, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Fransen, M.; McConnell, S.; Harmer, A.R.; Van der Esch, M.; Simic, M.; Bennell, K.L. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 1, CD004376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK). Osteoarthritis: Care and Management in Adults; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bannuru, R.R.; Osani, M.C.; Vaysbrot, E.E.; Arden, N.K.; Bennell, K.; Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.; Kraus, V.B.; Lohmander, L.S.; Abbott, J.H.; Bhandari, M.; et al. OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2019, 27, 1578–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kolasinski, S.L.; Neogi, T.; Hochberg, M.C.; Oatis, C.; Guyatt, G.; Block, J.; Callahan, L.; Copenhaver, C.; Dodge, C.; Felson, D.; et al. 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation guideline for the management of osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020, 72, 220–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Brosseau, L.; Taki, J.; Desjardins, B.; Thevenot, O.; Fransen, M.; Wells, G.A.; Imoto, A.M.; Toupin-April, K.; Westby, M.; Gallardo, I.C.; et al. The Ottawa panel clinical practice guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis. Part one: Introduction, and mind-body exercise programs. Clin. Rehabil. 2017, 31, 582–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Brosseau, L.; Taki, J.; Desjardins, B.; Thevenot, O.; Fransen, M.; Wells, G.A.; Mizusaki Imoto, A.; Toupin-April, K.; Westby, M.; Alvarez Gallardo, I.C.; et al. The Ottawa panel clinical practice guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis. Part two: Strengthening exercise programs. Clin. Rehabil. 2017, 31, 596–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brosseau, L.; Taki, J.; Desjardins, B.; Thevenot, O.; Fransen, M.; Wells, G.A.; Mizusaki Imoto, A.; Toupin-April, K.; Westby, M.; Alvarez Gallardo, I.C.; et al. The Ottawa panel clinical practice guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis. Part three: Aerobic exercise programs. Clin. Rehabil. 2017, 31, 612–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fernandes, L.; Hagen, K.B.; Bijlsma, J.W.; Andreassen, O.; Christensen, P.; Conaghan, P.G.; Doherty, M.; Geenen, R.; Hammond, A.; Kjeken, I.; et al. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2013, 72, 1125–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  22. Hayami, T.A. Osteoarthritis of the knee joint as a cause of musculoskeletal ambulation disability symptom complex (MADS). Clin. Calcium 2008, 18, 1574–1580. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Piyakhachornrot, N.; Aree-Ue, S.; Putwatana, P.; Kawinwonggowit, V. Impact of an integrated health education and exercise program in middle-aged Thai adults with osteoarthritis of the knee. Orthop. Nurs. 2011, 30, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Goff, A.J.; Silva, D.D.; Merolli, M.; Bell, E.C.; Crossley, K.M.; Barton, C.J. Patient education improves pain and function in people with knee osteoarthritis with better effects when combined with exercise therapy: A systematic review. J. Physiother. 2021, 67, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Khan, A.A.; Rizvi, J. The effects of muscle energy technique and static stretching of gastrocnemius on pain and disability in knee osteoarthritis. Pak. J. Rehabil. 2018, 7, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abbott, J.H.; Chapple, C.M.; Fitzgerald, G.K.; Fritz, J.M.; Childs, J.D.; Harcombe, H.; Stout, K. The incremental effects of manual therapy or booster sessions in addition to exercise therapy for knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther. 2015, 45, 975–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Anwer, S.; Alghadir, A.; Zafar, H.; Brismee, J.M. Effects of orthopaedic manual therapy in knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Physiotherapy 2018, 104, 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jorge, R.T.; Souza, M.C.; Chiari, A.; Jones, A.; Fernandes, A.D.; Júnior, I.L.; Natour, J. Progressive resistance exercise in women with osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2015, 29, 234–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Sartoyo, S.; Pradita, A.; Halimah, N. Perbandingan Frekuensi Kunjungan pada Pemberian Post Isometric Relaxation Muscle Energy Technique terhadap Peningkatan Kekuatan Otot Kondisi Knee Osteoarthritis di Rs. Dr. Soepraeon Kota Malang. J. Penelit. Kesehat. “SUARA FORIKES” (J. Health Res. “Voice”) 2022, 13, 136–139. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rangey, P.S.; Sheth, M.S.; Vyas, N.J. Comparison of Immediate Effect of Two Different Maitland Mobilization Protocols on Pain and Range Of Motion in Subjects with Osteoarthritis of Knee. Pain 2015, 6, 8. [Google Scholar]
  31. Luan, L.; Bousie, J.; Pranata, A.; Adams, R.; Han, J. Stationary cycling exercise for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Rehabil. 2021, 35, 522–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rodica Trăistaru, M.; Kamal, D.; Constantin Kamal, K.; Ovidiu Alexandru, D.; Radu, M. Complex rehabilitation in patients with knee arthroplasty. Palestrica Third Millenn. Civiliz. Sport 2020, 21, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Glossary. Spine 2000, 25, 3200–3202. Available online: (accessed on 27 November 2022). [CrossRef]
  34. Haefeli, M.; Elfering, A. Pain assessment. Eur. Spine J. 2006, 15, S17–S24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Price, D.D.; Harkins, S.W.; Baker, C. Sensory-affective relationships among different types of clinical and experimental pain. Pain 1987, 28, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Price, D.D.; McGrath, P.A.; Rafii, A.; Buckingham, B. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain 1983, 17, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Samuel, A.J.; Kanimozhi, D. Outcome measures used in patient with knee osteoarthritis: With special importance on functional outcome measures. Int. J. Health Sci. 2019, 13, 52. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bergquist, R.; Weber, M.; Schwenk, M.; Ulseth, S.; Helbostad, J.L.; Vereijken, B.; Taraldsen, K. Performance-based clinical tests of balance and muscle strength used in young seniors: A systematic literature review. BMC Geriatr. 2019, 19, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dobson, F.; Hinman, R.S.; Roos, E.M.; Abbott, J.H.; Stratford, P.; Davis, A.M.; Buchbinder, R.; Snyder-Mackler, L.; Henrotin, Y.; Thumboo, J.; et al. OARSI recommended performance-based tests to assess physical function in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2013, 21, 1042–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Maly, M.R.; Krupa, T. Personal experience of living with knee osteoarthritis among older adults. Disabil. Rehabil. 2007, 29, 1423–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nyvang, J.; Hedström, M.; Gleissman, S.A. It’s not just a knee, but a whole life: A qualitative descriptive study on patients’ experiences of living with knee osteoarthritis and their expectations for knee arthroplasty. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well-Being 2016, 11, 30193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pouli, N.; Das Nair, R.; Lincoln, N.B.; Walsh, D. The experience of living with knee osteoarthritis: Exploring illness and treatment beliefs through thematic analysis. Disabil. Rehabil. 2014, 36, 600–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Deyle, G.D.; Henderson, N.E.; Matekel, R.L.; Ryder, M.G.; Garber, M.B.; Allison, S.C. Effectiveness of manual physical therapy and exercise in osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomized, controlled trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2000, 132, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Ko, T.; Lee, S.; Lee, D. Manual therapy and exercise for OA knee: Effects on muscle strength, proprioception, and functional performance. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2009, 21, 293–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  45. Abbott, J.H.; Robertson, M.C.; Chapple, C.; Pinto, D.; Wright, A.A.; De la Barra, S.L.; Baxter, G.D.; Theis, J.C.; Campbell, A.J.; MOA Trial Team. Manual therapy, exercise therapy, or both, in addition to usual care, for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: A randomized controlled trial. 1: Clinical effectiveness. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2013, 21, 525–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
Figure 1. Flowchart of the participants and the study program.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the participants and the study program.
Healthcare 11 00564 g001
Figure 2. The mean data is adjusted for health, gender, and BMI. Data from thirty patients from each group have been analyzed and presented here in the bar graph with mean values and standard deviation. 0: Intervention group Pre; 1: Intervention group post treatment; 2: Control group pretreatment; 3: Control group post treatment. The p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***) is denoted in the graphs, NS = Non significant.
Figure 2. The mean data is adjusted for health, gender, and BMI. Data from thirty patients from each group have been analyzed and presented here in the bar graph with mean values and standard deviation. 0: Intervention group Pre; 1: Intervention group post treatment; 2: Control group pretreatment; 3: Control group post treatment. The p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***) is denoted in the graphs, NS = Non significant.
Healthcare 11 00564 g002aHealthcare 11 00564 g002b
Table 1. Designed PEPSMAN physiotherapy protocol administered to the subjects of the intervention group.
Table 1. Designed PEPSMAN physiotherapy protocol administered to the subjects of the intervention group.
S. No.ExerciseDescriptionSets/Repetitions/Hold TimeInter-Repetition/Inter-Set Rest TimeDurationSupporting
1.Patient Education Four Sessions--4 weeksPiyakhachornrot, N. et al., 2011 [23];
Goff, A.J. et al., 2021 [24]
2.Progressive Resistance Exercise
With patient specific resistance, for:
  • Knee extensors
  • Knee flexors
  • Hip extensors
  • Hip flexors
  • Hip abductors
  • Hip external rotators
  • Ankle dorsiflexors
  • Ankle plantar flexors
3 sets of 10 repetitions with 10 s hold2 s between repetitions and
30 s between sets
4 weeksKhan, A.A. et al., 2018 [25];
Abbott, J.H. et al., 2015 [26]
3.Stretching ExerciseTherapist performed passive stretching of:
  • Hamstrings
  • Quadriceps femoris
  • Gastro-Soleus
Single set of 3 repetitions with 30 s hold30 s between repetitions4 weeksAnwer et al., 2018 [27];
Abbott et al., 2015 [26]
Soft Tissue Manipulation (STM)
  • Peripatellar connective tissue
  • Quadriceps femoris
  • Hamstrings
  • Hip adductor
  • Gastro-Soleus
  • Fascia of thigh musculature
  • Fascia of leg musculature
3 to 5 min-4 weeksAbbott, J.H. et al., 2015 [26];
Jorge, R.T. et al., 2015 [28]
4.Muscle Energy Technique (MET)Post isometric relaxation technique was administered after application of 15 min of superficial moist heat to:
  • Quadriceps femoris
  • Hamstrings
  • Hip abductors
  • Ankle plantar flexors
Single set of 5 repetitions, isometric contraction for 5 s and passive stretch for 10 s.30 s between repetitions 4 weeksSartoyo, S. et al., 2022 [29];
Khan, A.A. et al., 2018 [25]
Maitland Mobilization
  • Patellofemoral joint
  • Tibiofemoral joint
  • Distal tibiofibular joint
  • Talocrural joint
  • Talocalcaneal joint
  • Hip joint
Specific to patient’s needs-4 weeksAbbott, J.H. et al., 2015 [26];
Rangey, P.S. et al., 2015 [30]
5.Aerobic ExercisePedo-Cycling: At patient specific self-selected speed and seat height3 sets of 50 repetitions30 s between sets 4 weeksLuan, L. et al., 2021 [31];
Abbott, J.H. et al., 2015 [26]
6.Neuromuscular Training:Frenkel Exercise3 sets of 15 repetitions2 s between repetitions and
30 s between sets
4 weeksRodica Trăistaru et al., 2020 [32];
Abbott et al., 2015 [26]
Standing balance on unstable surface3 sets of 3 repetitions with 60 s hold120 s between repetitions as well as between sets
The program was tailored according to the specific needs of the individual patient.
Table 2. Demographic and clinical characteristics of control and intervention group.
Table 2. Demographic and clinical characteristics of control and intervention group.
VariablesControl Group
(n = 30)
Intervention Group
(n = 30)
Male (n)2014
Female (n)1016
Age (years)51.5(5.5)51.5(5.2)
Height (cm)160.6(9.2)159.1(9.0)
Weight (kg)70.4(13.5)71.1(13.1)
Body Mass Index27.8(7.3)28.02(4.0)
Grade of Osteoarthritis1.8(0.8)1.9(0.5)
Diabetes (n)5 7
Inflammatory arthritis (n)1 2
Thyroid (n)4 7
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics.
Outcome MeasuresPEPSMANMeanSDN
Visual Analogue ScaleInter_P5.531.61330
Modified WOMAC ScaleInter_P25.8013.66430
40 m Fast Paced Walk TestInter_P36.038.70430
30 s Chair Stand TestInter_P9.932.94730
Stair Climb TestInter_P19.418.69930
Timed Up and Go TestInter_P11.583.27630
Functional Reach TestInter_P26.508.44430
Key-Inter_Po: Intervention Group Pre-test Scores, Inter_P: Intervention Group Post-test Scores, Non_Po: Control Group Pre-test Scores, Non_P: Control Group Post-test Scores.
Table 4. Test of Between Subject Effects.
Table 4. Test of Between Subject Effects.
SourceDependent VariableType III Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.Partial Eta SquaredNoncent.
Observed Power h
Corrected ModelVAS207.423 a634.57019.5540.0000.509117.3251.000
MWS11,329.510 b61888.25214.6350.0000.43787.8101.000
FPWT683.526 c6113.9212.1050.0580.10112.6320.736
CST157.733 d626.2892.3820.0330.11214.2910.797
SCT1811.865 e6301.9786.4390.0000.25538.6320.999
TUG225.334 f637.5564.8960.0000.20629.3780.989
FRT1148.139 g6191.3573.8390.0020.16923.0330.959
Key-a. R Squared = 0.509 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.483) b. R Squared = 0.437 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.407) c. R Squared = 0.101 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.053) d. R Squared = 0.112 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.065) e. R Squared = 0.255 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.215) f. R Squared = 0.206 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.164) g. R Squared = 0.169 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.125) h. Computed using alpha = 0.05.
Table 5. Estimates and Pairwise significance comparison.
Table 5. Estimates and Pairwise significance comparison.
95% Confidence Interval
Dependent VariablePEPSMANMeanStandard ErrorLower BoundUpper Bound
Visual Analogue ScaleInter_P5.512 a0.2445.0285.995
Inter_Po2.145 a0.2441.6612.629
Non_P5.155 a0.2444.6715.639
Non_Po3.988 a0.2443.5054.472
Modified WOMAC ScaleInter_P26.277 a2.08622.14530.410
Inter_Po10.911 a2.0866.77815.043
Non_P24.623 a2.08620.49028.755
Non_Po36.523 a2.08632.39040.655
40 m Fast Paced Walk TestInter_P36.151 a1.35133.47538.828
Inter_Po32.418 a1.35129.74235.094
Non_P35.949 a1.35133.27238.625
Non_Po38.215 a1.35135.53940.891
30 s Chair Stand TestInter_P9.969 a0.6108.76011.178
Inter_Po11.736 a0.61010.52712.944
Non_P10.531 a0.6109.32211.740
Non_Po8.664 a0.6107.4569.873
Stair Climb TestInter_P19.444 a1.25816.95321.936
Inter_Po15.798 a1.25813.30618.289
Non_P19.502 a1.25817.01121.994
Non_Po12.969 a1.25810.47815.461
Timed Up and Go TestInter_P11.632 a0.50910.62412.640
Inter_Po9.022 a0.5098.01410.030
Non_P12.378 a0.50911.37013.386
Non_Po11.511 a0.50910.50412.519
Functional Reach TestInter_P26.776 a1.29624.20729.345
Inter_Po31.709 a1.29629.14134.278
Non_P26.024 a1.29623.45528.593
Non_Po31.524 a1.29628.95534.093
Key-Inter_Po: Intervention Group Pre-test Scores; Inter_P: Intervention Group Post-test Scores; Non_Po: Control Group Pre-test Scores; Non_P: Control Group Post-test Scores. a. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Gender = 0.43, age_yrs = 51.48, BMI = 28.00.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khan, S.A.; Parasher, P.; Ansari, M.A.; Parvez, S.; Fatima, N.; Alam, I. Effect of an Integrated Physiotherapy Protocol on Knee Osteoarthritis Patients: A Preliminary Study. Healthcare 2023, 11, 564.

AMA Style

Khan SA, Parasher P, Ansari MA, Parvez S, Fatima N, Alam I. Effect of an Integrated Physiotherapy Protocol on Knee Osteoarthritis Patients: A Preliminary Study. Healthcare. 2023; 11(4):564.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Sohrab Ahmad, Prithvi Parasher, Mairaj Ahmed Ansari, Suhel Parvez, Noor Fatima, and Iqbal Alam. 2023. "Effect of an Integrated Physiotherapy Protocol on Knee Osteoarthritis Patients: A Preliminary Study" Healthcare 11, no. 4: 564.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop