Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines recommend applying theory within interventions to explain how behaviour change occurs. Guidelines endorse self-management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) and osteoarthritis (OA), but evidence for its effectiveness is weak. This literature review aimed to determine the use of behaviour change theory and techniques within group-based self-management randomised controlled trials for chronic musculoskeletal pain, including CLBP and OA. A two phase search strategy of electronic databases was used to identify systematic reviews and studies relevant to this area. Articles were coded independently for their use of behaviour change theory, and the number of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) was identified using a 93 item taxonomy, Taxonomy (v1).Background
Methods
Midvastus (MV) vs Medial Parapatellar (MPP) approach: Quadriceps function in the early post operative period was better preserved in the MV group. Post operative pain, blood loss and the need for LRR tended to be lower in the MV group. Subvastus (SV) vs Medial Parapatellar approach: Quadriceps function was better preserved in the SV group up to 3 months post operatively. ROM was generally greater up until the 4 week time point. Post operative pain and blood loss was lower in the SV group. Midvastus vs Subvastus approach: The SV group suffered with significantly more pain at six months post operatively. Quadriceps-sparing versus Medial Parapatellar Approach: Significantly longer operative times and more complications were noted in the QS group. Modified ‘Quadriceps sparing’ Medial Parapatellar vs Mini-Subvastus (MSV) approach: A tendency for earlier restoration of SLR and better early ROM was noted in the MSV group.
MIS tends to result in an improved early quadriceps function and decreased blood loss. However, these approaches are technically more demanding, result in longer operative times and provide no long-term benefit. There is concern that they result in a greater number of major complications and risk implant mal-alignment. Eversion of the patella seems to correlate with poor quadriceps function.
Midvastus vs Medial Parapatellar approach: Quadriceps function in the early post operative period was better preserved in the MV group. Post operative pain, blood loss and the need for LRR tended to be lower in the MV group. There was no difference in ROM, hospital stay, knee scores, complications or radiological alignment. Subvastus vs Medial Parapatellar approach: Quadriceps function was better preserved in the SV group up to 3 months post operatively. ROM was generally greater up to the 4 week time point. Post operative pain and blood loss was lower in the SV group. There was no difference in operative/tourniquet time, hospital stay, rate of LRR, or complications. Modified “Quadriceps sparing” Medial Parapatellar vs Mini-Subvastus (MSV) approach: A tendency for earlier restoration of SLR and better early ROM was noted in the MSV group. Midvastus vs Subvastus approach: The SV group suffered with significantly more pain at six months post operatively.