Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recovery from knee surgery or injury can be hindered by knee arthrofibrosis, which can lead to motion limitations, pain and delayed recovery. Surgery or prolonged physical therapy are often treatment options for arthrofibrosis, but they can result in increased costs and decreased quality of life. A treatment option that can regain lost motion without surgery would help minimize risks and costs for the patient. The purpose of this study was to determine treatment efficacy of high-intensity home mechanical stretch therapy in patients with knee arthrofibrosis. METHODS: Records were reviewed for 11,000+ patients who were prescribed a high-intensity stretch device to regain knee flexion. Initial and last recorded knee flexion and days between measurements were available for 9842 patients (Dataset 1). Dataset 2 was a subset of 966 patients from Dataset 1. These 966 patients had separate more rigorous measurements available from physical therapy notes (Dataset 3) in addition to data from the internal database (Dataset 2). Within and between dataset statistics were calculated using t tests for comparison of means and Cohen's d for determination of effect size. RESULTS: All dataset showed significant gains in flexion (p < 0.01). Mean initial flexion, last recorded flexion and flexion gain were 79.5°, 108.4°, and 29.9°, respectively in Dataset 1. Differences between Datasets 2 and 3 had small effect sizes (Cohen's d < 0.17). The were no significant differences when comparing workers' compensation and non-workers' compensation patients. The average last recorded flexion for all datasets was above the level required to perform activities of daily living. Motion gains were recorded in under 60 days from device delivery. CONCLUSIONS: High-intensity home mechanical stretch therapy was effective in restoring knee flexion, generally in 2 months or less, and in avoiding additional surgery in severe motion loss patients regardless of sex, age, or workers' compensation status. We believe high-intensity stretching should be considered in any patient who is at risk for a secondary motion loss surgery, because in over 90% of these patients, the complications and costs associated with surgery can be avoided.