ライフサイエンスコーパス: varus

1 e interval [95% CI] 0.20-1.65 degrees ); for varus, 0.92 degrees (95% CI 0.18-1.68 degrees ); for ext

2 ing that knees with a thrust are a subset of varus-aligned knees at particularly high risk for progre

3 rust increased the odds of progression among varus-aligned knees considered separately, suggesting th

4 to have lower dGEMRIC values laterally, and varus-aligned knees tended to have lower dGEMRIC values

5 f the malalignment (e.g., new medial BMLs in varus-aligned knees).

6 In varus-aligned knees, thrust increased the odds of OA pro

7 0.89% body weight x height) and were in more varus alignment (6.0 +/- 4.5 degrees ) than knees with l

8 pain in relation to varus thrust and static varus alignment (i.e., corrected anatomic alignment<178

9 5.0 versus 4.2 in those with versus without varus alignment (P=0.36).

10 ant associations were found between rearfoot varus alignment and any hip conditions.

11 ere were no significant associations between varus alignment and responses to individual WOMAC pain q

12 estions as the outcomes and varus thrust and varus alignment as the predictors.

13 Varus alignment at baseline was associated with a 4-fold

14 tment were significantly increased 4-fold by varus alignment at baseline.

15 Subjects in the highest category of forefoot varus alignment had 1.8 times the odds of having ipsilat

16 isease than do Caucasians, given a report of varus alignment in the knee joints of Chinese elderly.

17 first demonstration that in primary knee OA varus alignment increases risk of medial OA progression,

18 some reduction after further adjustment for varus alignment severity.

19 The mean +/- SD rearfoot varus alignment was 0.7 +/- 5.5 degrees, and the mean +/

20 /- 5.5 degrees, and the mean +/- SD forefoot varus alignment was 9.9 +/- 9.9 degrees.

21 in certain medial subregions and neutral and varus alignment with a reduction in the risk of cartilag

22 ession of structural damage in OA knees with varus alignment.

23 as observed among knees with neutral but not varus alignment.

24 had greater medial knee laxity, and had more varus alignment.

25 associated with OA progression in knees with varus alignment; however, it did increase the risk of pr

26 l, external femoral) and with valgus (versus varus) alignment (central tibial, external tibial, centr

27 bregions was associated with neutral (versus varus) alignment (external tibial, central femoral, exte

28 ROC curve (95% CI) was 0.91 (0.86, 0.96) for varus and 0.94 (0.89, 0.99) for valgus.

29 le angle) were 0.84 and 0.84 for identifying varus and 0.98 and 0.73 for valgus, respectively.

30 llent discriminative ability for identifying varus and valgus alignment evidenced by area under the R

31 nt influences load distribution at the knee; varus and valgus alignment increase medial and lateral l

32 Varus and valgus malalignment increase the risk of media

33 ook this study to determine the frequency of varus and valgus thrust in African Americans and Caucasi

34 y-recruited patients with knee OA, 2 groups (varus and valgus) were identified based on dominant knee

35 Sensitivity analyses suggested that varus classified using a more stringent definition might

36 Severity of varus correlated with greater medial joint space loss du

37 ore the cross-sectional relationship between varus foot alignment and hip conditions in a population

38 BMI correlated with OA severity in the varus group (r = -0.29, P = 0.0009) but not in the valgu

39 I correlated with malalignment in those with varus knees (r = 0.26) but not in those with valgus knee

40 One hundred fifty-four patients had varus knees and 115 had valgus knees.

41 BMI was related to OA severity in those with varus knees but not in those with valgus knees.

42 ndex (BMI) is correlated with OA severity in varus knees, 2) the BMI-OA severity correlation is weake

43 rity correlation is weaker in valgus than in varus knees, 3) BMI is correlated with the severity of v

44 ribution is more equitable in valgus than in varus knees, and valgus knees may better tolerate obesit

45 r hypotheses that neutral and valgus (versus varus) knees each have reduced odds of cartilage loss in

46 within the mechanically stressed (medial for varus, lateral for valgus) tibiofemoral compartment.

47 ow lesions were seen mostly in patients with varus limbs, and lateral lesions were seen mostly in tho

48 ment loss on the lateral view only were more varus malaligned (P < 0.001), while those with lateral c

49 ral loss included medial meniscal damage and varus malalignment (medially) and lateral meniscal damag

50 it precedes or follows the onset of disease, varus malalignment is one local factor that may contribu

51 Forefoot varus malalignment may be associated with ipsilateral hi

52 Mechanical strain on the hip can result from varus malalignment of the foot.

53 ial and femoral denuded bone increase, while varus malalignment predicted medial tibial cartilage vol

54 peed, knee pain severity, physical activity, varus malalignment severity, hip OA presence, and hip OA

55 rom 0.24 (P = 0.002) to 0.04 (P = 0.42) when varus malalignment was added to the model.

56 Varus malalignment was examined as a possible local medi

57 Conversely, varus malalignment was more likely in the medial PF OA g

58 y of medial tibiofemoral OA was explained by varus malalignment, after controlling for sex.

59 s, 3) BMI is correlated with the severity of varus malalignment, and 4) the BMI-medial tibiofemoral O

60 Medially, meniscal tears, varus malalignment, and cartilage damage were associated

61 elationship is reduced after controlling for varus malalignment.

62 Both valgus and varus malalignments affect forces at the PF joint and ma

63 alignment versus neutral alignment (neither varus nor valgus) on OA structural outcomes.

64 k of progression was comparably increased by varus or valgus alignment (10-fold).

65 assess varus-valgus laxity under a constant varus or valgus load while maintaining a fixed knee flex

66 ll stages of knee OA examined, the impact of varus or valgus malalignment on the odds of OA progressi

67 Varus severity worsened comparably with each alignment m

68 nts with knee OA, varus thrust, and possibly varus static alignment, were associated with pain, speci

69 Treatment of varus thrust (e.g., via bracing or gait modification) ma

70 ively, in those with versus without definite varus thrust (P=0.007) and 5.0 versus 4.2 in those with

71 nderwent baseline gait observation to assess varus thrust and full-limb radiography to assess alignme

72 casians, African Americans had lower odds of varus thrust and greater odds of valgus thrust.

73 ed means for total WOMAC pain in relation to varus thrust and static varus alignment (i.e., corrected

74 ual WOMAC pain questions as the outcomes and varus thrust and varus alignment as the predictors.

75 Varus thrust increased the odds of progression among var

76 Varus thrust is a potent risk factor, identifiable by si

77 Varus thrust may also predict poor physical function out

78 Varus thrust observed during gait has been shown to be a

79 Varus thrust was present in 67 of 401 knees.

80 Also independently associated with varus thrust were age, sex, BMI, disease severity, stren

81 tment knee osteoarthritis who have a visible varus thrust will also progress at a more rapid rate tha

82 In patients with knee OA, varus thrust, and possibly varus static alignment, were

83 casians, African Americans had lower odds of varus thrust, controlling for age, sex, body mass index

84 ded while walking and scored for presence of varus thrust.

85 at a more rapid rate than patients without a varus thrust.

86 ly, in those with and those without definite varus thrust.

87 us thrust is believed to be less common than varus thrust; the prevalence of each is uncertain.

88 Proprioceptive acuity was assessed in varus, valgus, flexion, and extension using threshold to

89 Varus-valgus alignment (the angle formed by the intersec

90 Varus-valgus alignment (the angle formed by the intersec

91 Varus-valgus alignment has been linked to subsequent pro

92 was more common than medial progression, and varus-valgus alignment influenced the likelihood of PF O

93 Varus-valgus alignment may influence the risk of PF OA a

94 We assessed varus-valgus and anteroposterior laxity in 25 young cont

95 Greater varus-valgus laxity in the uninvolved knees of OA patien

96 In OA patients, varus-valgus laxity increased as joint space decreased (

97 Varus-valgus laxity is associated with a decrease in the

98 These results raise the possibility that varus-valgus laxity may increase the risk of knee OA and

99 se in knee OA, stratification of analyses by varus-valgus laxity should be considered.

100 control knees and an age-related increase in varus-valgus laxity support the concept that some portio

101 In the controls, women had greater varus-valgus laxity than did men (3.6 degrees versus 2.7

102 A device was designed to assess varus-valgus laxity under a constant varus or valgus loa

103 Varus-valgus laxity was greater in the uninvolved knees

104 determine quadriceps and hamstring strength, varus-valgus laxity, functional status (Western Ontario

105 local mechanical and neuromuscular factors (varus-valgus laxity, malalignment, proprioceptive inaccu

106 ilage/bone height is associated with greater varus-valgus laxity.

107 Varus (versus nonvarus) alignment increased the odds of

108 internal tibial, posterior tibial) and with varus (versus valgus) alignment (central tibial, externa

109 n the medial subregions and that neutral and varus (versus valgus) knees each have reduced odds of ca