Knee Osteoarthritis

Disease/Disorder

Definition

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by progressive degeneration of articular cartilage and subchondral bone that manifests clinically as pain and dysfunction. It is traditionally classified as a non-inflammatory arthritis, although localized inflammatory processes are present in certain stages of the disease.¹

Etiology

Primary knee OA is thought to be caused by repetitive mechanical stress, which initiates and perpetuates degeneration.² Secondary OA is initiated by prior trauma, sepsis, or inflammatory conditions with resultant joint instability, incongruity of the articular surface, and/or altered cartilage metabolism and matrix composition.^1,2

Epidemiology including risk factors and primary prevention

OA is the leading cause of musculoskeletal debility in the world, and approximately 19-28% of Americans over the age of 45 have knee OA.³ Since the mid-20^th century, the prevalence of knee OA has doubled, even when controlling for age and BMI.⁴

Multiple local and systemic risk factors have been identified. Advanced age is the risk factor most associated with OA, with incidence rates increasing significantly over the age of 50.⁵ Obesity is another strong risk factor linked to knee OA, associated with significant rates of incidence and progression. Other risk factors include female sex, hormonal status, osteoporosis, ethnicity, genetic predisposition, dietary intake, muscle weakness, altered biomechanics, joint laxity/deformity, occupational factors, certain competitive sports, and previous trauma.⁶

The evidence for effective primary prevention of knee OA is somewhat limited; however, risk may be reduced through weight loss, regular exercise, prevention, and management of osteoporosis.⁷

Recently, predictive models have been implemented in order to identify patients at risk for TKA. These models may help the rehabilitation team understand when a surgical referral is necessary. Many predictive variables are similar to those present for the development of early-stage OA: age, sex, race, and body-mass index. Other variables include history of knee arthroscopy, frequent knee pain, current use of analgesics, current use of glucosamine, and the WOMAC pain score. The Kellgren-Lawrence grade has recently been added into this model with improved predictive performance compared to models without radiographic scores.⁸

Patho-anatomy/physiology

Initiation and progression of knee OA is a consequence of one or more factors including loss of cartilage matrix, alteration of the extracellular matrix, and chondrocyte injury. The disease may also involve focal macroscopic chondral or subchondral injury. Cartilage edema may develop secondary to increased chondrocyte activity in response to such injury. Over time and with repetitive injury, disruption of matrix equilibrium leads to a catabolic shift; the cartilage thus begins to lose structural integrity, resulting in progressive surface fibrillations and erosions. Resultant breakdown products stimulate synovial inflammation, immune cell activity, and high levels of proinflammatory cytokines as the disease progresses. The role of inflammation in symptom and disease progression in knee OA is unclear, but evidence indicates these factors exacerbate cartilage erosion.⁹ Inflammatory factors such as interleukins, tumor necrosis factor, and prostaglandin E2 have been linked to further matrix-degrading enzyme reproduction, oxidation of molecules, and decreased matrix synthesis.⁹

OA phenotypes, or subtypes of OA that share distinct pathobiological and pain mechanisms as a result of their structural and functional consequences, is a growing area of study. Researchers are hoping to identify whether treatment efficacy may differ between OA phenotypes with goals to tailor treatment strategies to individual phenotypes rather than treating OA as a homogeneous condition. Roemer et al proposed five structural phenotypes in their 2022 study: the inflammatory, meniscus-cartilage, subchondral bone, atrophic, and hypertrophic phenotypes. Classification systems currently consist of a variety of variables, such as biochemical markers, imaging, and pain characteristics.¹⁰

Trajerova et al also proposed OA phenotypes specific to the pattern of immune cells and proteins in knee synovial fluid. These included: activated phenotype (high T-lymphocytes, low monocyte-macrophage, low neutrophils), lymphoid progressive (high neutrophils, low lymphocytes and monocyte-macrophages), myeloid progressive (high NK and monocyte-macrophage lineage cells, low T-lymphocytes), and the aggressive phenotype (high cell lines throughout). Additional research is needed to understand the clinical significance of these phenotypes with regards to targeted therapeutic treatments.¹¹

Disease progression including natural history, disease phases or stages, disease trajectory (clinical features and presentation over time)

Knee OA is characterized by an insidious onset of pain and dysfunction related to progressive limitations in mobility. Symptoms worsen over time, typically in a stepwise fashion. Patients often report symptoms with ambulation, transfers, and ascending stairs. Knee stiffness or “locking” secondary to the formation of loose bodies, degenerative meniscal tears, and osteophyte formation may occur. These can significantly increase pain severity, hinder activities of daily living, and reduce quality of life.

Specific secondary or associated conditions or complications

Secondary altered biomechanics during functional tasks may lead to the development of pes anserine and/or trochanteric bursitis. Knee OA may alter gait patterns by aberrantly loading the contralateral joint during ambulation, which may result in secondary OA in the opposite hip and knee. Associated health effects such as weight gain and reduced cardiovascular health may arise from decreased activity levels. Increasing evidence has found that knee OA with pain – especially in females, Caucasians, age < 65 years, and BMI > 30 – is associated with a significant increase in premature all-cause mortality.¹²

Essentials of Assessment

History

The most common presenting symptoms include pain and dysfunctional movement due to stiffness, decreased range of motion, and subjective joint instability. Onset is gradual and typically occurs in males aged >40 years and females in perimenopause or older. Individuals may report involvement of one or both knees. Pain is often described as dull and may be localized or involve the whole knee. Initial pain occurs with standing or walking but may become persistent at rest with disease progression. It is important to note that pain may fluctuate over time, and it is not uncommon to have prolonged periods without pain followed by exacerbations lasting weeks to months.¹³

Physical exam

• Inspection: Erythema, warmth, and swelling are mild if present. Assessment of stance and gait may demonstrate contralateral asymmetry in the setting of joint hypertrophy.
• Palpation: Tenderness to palpation is often present at the joint line (most commonly medial) or patellofemoral articulation. An effusion may be palpable at the suprapatellar bursa with associated ballottement of the patella. Bony enlargement may also be present.
• Range of motion (ROM): Active and passive movement may elicit pain and crepitus. Flexion may be reduced in early disease, with limitations in extension typically occurring in later stages.
• Strength: Manual muscle testing may be limited secondary to pain. Muscle atrophy and weakness may be seen over time secondary to avoidance of painful activities. Weakness is most prominent in the quadriceps and associated hip musculature but may also involve the hamstrings
• Special Tests: Instability may be noted on valgus/varus stress testing. Dynamic functional assessments such as the single leg squat may demonstrate misalignment of the kinetic chain and/or altered patellar tracking.¹³

Clinical functional assessment

Performance-based tests and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) have been utilized to evaluate pain and function in individuals with knee OA. The Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) recommends a set of five performance-based tests:

• 30s Chair Stand Test
• 40m Fast-paced Walk Test
• Stair Climb Test
• Timed up & Go Test
• 6 Minute Walk Test

Evidence supports the use of these assessments as clinically significant predictors of future health. A description of the tests, copies of scoring sheets, and clinimetric data can be accessed via the ORSI website.¹⁴

PROMs have also been developed and validated to assess severity and treatment outcomes specific to knee OA. The following measures are most commonly used:¹⁴

• Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) – a 24-item assessment of pain, stiffness, and physical function in knee OA
• Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) – a 42-item assessment of pain, symptoms, function in daily living, function in sports/recreation, and knee-related quality of life
• Visual Analog Scale (VAS) – a single-item measure of pain severity that can be used for OA in any joint

Laboratory studies

Knee OA is a clinical diagnosis established by a thorough history and physical examination, therefore there are no diagnostic blood or urine tests. Joint aspiration is not routinely indicated, however fluid obtained from the joint may be useful in distinguishing OA from other causes of joint pain, such as rheumatoid arthritis.¹³ Synovial fluid analysis consistent with OA should have <2000 leukocytes and lymphocytic predominance.¹

Imaging

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) and the American College of Radiology (ACR) have released recommendations for clinical indications of imaging in knee OA. Plain radiography is first-line due to its fast acquisition, widespread availability, and low cost, allowing for optimal visualization of characteristic OA findings including osteophytes, subchondral sclerosis and cysts, and joint space narrowing (JSN). Imaging can be obtained in non-weight-bearing (NWB) or weight-bearing (WB), and in full extension or semiflexion views. WB and semiflexion anteroposterior (AP) views have been shown to more accurately reflect OA-related structural damage and better correlate with arthroscopic findings.¹⁵

The Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) system is accepted as the standard by the World Health Organization and is most commonly used. Radiographic images are graded as follows¹⁵

• Grade 0 (No OA): No radiographic findings of OA
• Grade 1 (Doubtful OA): Doubtful JSN and possible osteophytic lipping
• Grade 2 (Mild OA): Definite osteophytes and possible JSN
• Grade 3 (Moderate OA): Moderate multiple osteophytes, definite JSN, some sclerosis, and possible deformity of bony contour
• Grade 4 (Severe OA): Large osteophytes, marked JSN, severe sclerosis, and definite deformity of bony contour

When considering the role of imaging in the diagnosis and management of knee OA, it is important to recognize that radiographic evidence of structural damage does not imply clinical disease.¹³

Supplemental assessment tools

Computed tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) can be used as second-line imaging for knee OA. CT has a higher sensitivity for osteophytes, subchondral cysts, and tricompartmental disease than radiographs, however its utility is limited by radiation exposure, expense, and NWB positioning. MRI avoids exposure to radiation while allowing for superior characterization of soft tissues. In comparison to radiographs, MRI allows improved detection of early structural changes in OA, however there is an associated risk of overdiagnosis given the high prevalence of MRI findings in asymptomatic individuals.¹⁵

In recent years, there has been growing support for the use of Ultrasound (US) in OA assessment. US is more accessible and cost-effective in comparison to MRI, while providing detailed imaging of the soft tissues surrounding the joint (including meniscus, ligament/tendon, cartilage, synovium, and fluid collections). Furthermore, US has emerged as a valuable interventional tool for improving targeted precision and avoiding neurovascular structures during procedures such as intra-articular injections.¹⁶

Early predictions of outcomes

Predictors of disease progression include age, obesity, the presence of OA in other joints, previous knee injury, history of regular sports progression, and varus deformity of the knee.¹⁷ Radiographic features of disease, including Kellgren-Lawrence scale severity, presence of chondrocalcinosis, and osteophyte score, are also predictive of progression.¹⁷ Increased physical activity (of any intensity level) and increased quadriceps muscle strength are associated with decreased progression of disability in adults with knee OA.¹⁸

Environmental

Access to resistance exercise equipment and safe walking routes or treadmills can help patients maintain active lifestyles. Ground floor habitation or living in elevator buildings can help improve accessibility and further promote patient mobility.

Social role and support system

It is important to determine if stiffness, pain, or decreased ROM is interfering with an individual’s ability for self-care. Having someone who can provide assistance, or regular positive social interaction (be it a family member or paid caregiver), can ultimately affect patient outcomes.¹⁹ In patients with knee OA, there has been evidence that normal mood at baseline (characterized by self-efficacy with pain and improved satisfaction with life) predicts improved function.

Therapists and care teams can provide psychosocial support to patients by helping them understand that OA-related pain can be managed effectively. This is crucial in helping individuals overcome the associated kinesiophobia. This may promote patient engagement in safe exercise, even in the presence of pain.

Professional issues

N/A

Rehabilitation Management and Treatments

Available or current treatment guidelines

Guidelines for the management of knee OA have been published by the American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation (ACR/AF), the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), and the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). While some differences exist across these organizations, there is a general consensus supporting the following nonpharmacologic treatment modalities.^1,20

• Self-management programs and education
• Weight loss (if overweight)
• Low-impact aerobic exercise (aquatic and/or land based)
• Physical Therapy
• Neuromuscular training (e.g., balance)

Regarding pharmacologic management, several treatments exist however there are differing levels of support across organizations.^1,20

Additionally, several braces (e.g., off-loader braces), orthotics (e.g., medial and lateral wedges), and assistive devices (e.g., canes) have been used in the treatment of knee OA.

The 2026 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) guidance statement on the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for knee osteoarthritis provides additional evidence-based guidelines on topics such as patient selection, PRP formulation, platelet dosage, frequency/number of injections, and procedural considerations. Best practice recommendations include injection of at least 10 billion platelets to improve clinical outcomes, avoidance of NSAIDs before and after the injection, imaging guidance, and appropriate post-procedural rehabilitation.²¹

At different disease stages

Early management of OA should focus on decreasing pain level, increasing function, and attempting to slow disease progression. Structured weight-loss programs should be implemented in patients who are overweight or obese in order to decrease mechanical forces across the knee.²² Physical therapy incorporating low-impact land-based exercise, aquatic exercise, strength training, and neuromuscular education should be considered as the foundation of the treatment plan for any stage of OA. Strength training should focus on improving quadriceps, hamstrings, calf, and hip girdle strength. Oral analgesics, intra-articular injections, therapeutic modalities, and bracing/orthotics are additional treatment options that should be considered within the context of an individual patient and their co-morbidities.

Injectable therapies are generally trialed next, particularly when initial conservative therapies are ineffective or minimally effective. Corticosteroid injections (CSI), hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) derived from adipose tissue (including Microfragmented Adipose Tissue (MFAT) and Stromal Vascular Fraction (SVF) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) can be delivered to the intra-articular space. These treatments are discussed in more detail below.

Landmark-guided knee injection accuracy varies widely by anatomical approach and operator experience, with even the most reliable sites showing substantial rates of extra-articular placement. Ultrasound guidance provides consistently higher accuracy and procedural success across injectors of varying experience levels. Currently, the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine recommends the use of ultrasound guidance for major joint injections, citing improved accuracy, and patient tolerance of the procedure.²³

Intra-articular corticosteroid injections may be helpful in patients who have moderate to severe OA of the knee to target decreasing inflammation for reducing pain. Multiple types of corticosteroids have been used, including prednisolone, methylprednisolone, betamethasone, and triamcinolone. Typically, local anesthetics are combined with CSI for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.However, repeated use of intra-articular corticosteroids could potentially cause thinning of cartilage and in a 2025 multicenter study from the Osteoarthritis Initiative, patients who received CSI had greater arthritis progression on MRI compared to both HA and saline controls.²⁴ Similar to CSI, many different formulations of hyaluronic acid are being used. These treatments can be categorized as native versus crosslinked, low-molecular weight versus high-molecular weight, and single injection versus series of three injection options. Commonly employed forms include sodium hyaluronate, hyaluronan, and Hylan G-F-20.²⁵

Recent evidence suggests that CSI, HA, and PRP can all provide short to medium term (4-12 weeks) improvement in pain and function when measured by WOMAC or VAS scores without serious adverse events. There is emerging evidence that HA may be superior to CSI in the long term (6 to 12 months). However, despite many studies illustrating the benefits of these intra-articular injections, there are still heterogeneous recommendations from two of the major academic governing societies, ACR/AF and AAOS²⁶

In moderate to severe OA, patients may fail conservative management and require surgical interventions. Arthroscopic debridement is generally not employed as a means of intervention in patients with a primary diagnosis of knee OA as there are very high levels of evidence that do not support its use.²⁷ However, younger non-obese patients with symptom duration of < 6 months stemming from a primary diagnosis of meniscal tear, loose body, or other mechanical derangement with a concomitant diagnosis of incidental mild (Kellgren-Lawrence scale grade 1) OA of the knee may benefit in the event of failure of conservative measures.²⁸ Knee preservation techniques may be used for single-compartment OA or ligamentous instability of the knee to decrease OA progression and more evenly distribute forces across the joint surface. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is generally the preferred definitive surgical treatment (cemented versus cementless TKA). Cemented TKA is currently the gold-standard, as it allows for immediate weight-bearing and may be associated with better long-term functional recovery.²⁹

Coordination of care

OA is multifaceted and may require the input from several healthcare professionals. Direct communication among the care team members (physical therapists, physicians, and family) is important to understanding the patient’s progress and helping to achieve optimal outcomes.

Patient and family education

It is important to educate patients and family members about modifiable risk factors for the development and progression of OA, so they may target specific risk factors and make appropriate lifestyle changes to reduce the disease risk and manage OA symptoms.

Measurement of treatment outcomes

Multiple survey-based and objective functional measures of mobility and function have been developed as previously described in the Clinical Functional Measures section.

Translation into practice

The use of both objective functional (e.g., 30s Chair-Stand Test, 40m Fast-Paced Walk Test) and PROMs (e.g., WOMAC, KOOS) measures can be used for both tracking clinical course and response to treatments as well as providing measures of patient outcomes for quality of care reporting.

Cutting Edge/Emerging and Unique Concepts and Practice

The field of Regenerative Medicine remains a rapidly developing area of study with growing evidence surrounding the utilization of orthobiologics for OA. The most common biologics under investigation for knee OA are platelet-rich plasma (PRP), adipose-derived MSCs (MFAT), and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC).

• PRP: Autologous blood plasma that is concentrated through centrifugation of whole blood with a platelet concentration above that of whole blood. The supraphysiologic level of platelets release growth factors, cytokines and chemokines.
• BMAC: Centrifugation of bone marrow aspirate to obtain a concentrate that includes mesenchymal stem/stromal cells, progenitor cells, platelets, and growth factors.
• MFAT: Adipose tissue that has been mechanically broken into small 0.3-0.8 mm clusters without enzymatic processing. This allows for maintenance of small vessels which have a preserved extracellular matrix that can help supply mesenchymal stem cells. Additionally, there is evidence that this process enhances growth factor and cytokine secretion.
• SVF: Removal of adipocytes is followed by enzymatic digestion, typically with collagenase. The cellular composition includes mesenchymal stem cells, pericytes, smooth muscle cells and other hematopoietic progenitor cells.

A 2025 meta-analysis demonstrated that PRP provided clinically significant pain relief at 3 and 6 months post injection as well as clinically significant improvement in function at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after injection. A key factor in this was platelet concentration above 1,000,000 platelets/microliter.³⁰ Recent evidence underscores the critical role of formulation and dosing in optimizing the therapeutic efficacy of PRP injections. Systematic investigations into platelet-rich plasma (PRP) have increasingly shifted from simple concentration metrics to total deliverable platelet counts, with Berrigan et al. demonstrating that studies reporting statistically significant positive outcomes at 6 months utilized a substantially higher mean platelet dose (5.5 x 10⁹) compared to those without clinical significance (2.3 x 10⁹).³¹

Beyond dosing, the strategy of combining modalities has emerged as a superior alternative to monotherapy. A meta-analysis of 11 RCTs involving 1,023 patients, revealing that combination therapy (PRP + HA) significantly outperforms PRP monotherapy in reducing WOMAC total scores and enhancing IKDC functional measures.³²

Recent data suggests that when PRP is compared to other biologic interventions such as MFAT, and BMAC, there are no statistically significant differences in pain or function scores among them for OA of the knee.^33,34 There are mixed results when comparing the efficacy of biologic injections to standard CSI. One recent study demonstrated superiority of MFAT injections to a control saline injection group for pain control and functional outcomes for up to 12 months. Notably, when compared to the same saline control group, CSI only provided improvements at 6 week and 2 month follow up.³⁵ Another study found that cellular injections (BMAC, SVF, and umbilical cord tissue) were safe but not superior to corticosteroids for knee osteoarthritis at 12 months.³⁶ Following these findings, a subsequent responder analysis was performed on the same data, which indicated a higher likelihood of meaningful pain improvement with BMAC in select subgroups, particularly men under 60. This suggests that patient selection may also play a role in outcomes with these biologic techniques.³⁷

There is increasing interest in viewing the progression of knee OA as a disease of the entire osteochondral unit including cartilage degradation, subchondral bone remodeling, inflammation of the synovium and bone marrow lesion formation. With this, there has also been interest in injection targets for optimal outcomes. These include traditional intraarticular methods, as well as the addition of Intraosseous (IO) injection to reach the subchondral bone. Those who study IO technique postulate that IA may not adequately reach the subchondral space where processes contributing to OA such as abnormal vascularization, osteoblast/osteoclast turnover, and pain mediator expression are occurring.³⁸ BMAC however has demonstrated most promising data. A recent randomized control trial by Hernigou et al. demonstrated that IO administration of BMAC was superior to IA delivery. It demonstrated superior clinical and MRI outcomes at 2 years as well as a 50% absolute risk reduction for knee replacement at 15 year follow up.³⁹

In addition to Regenerative Medicine and orthobiologic treatments, more research is being done on a spectrum of non-traditional treatment options:

• Kinesio Taping (KT): KT is commonly utilized in sports to provide proprioceptive feedback and facilitate certain movement patterns. Some research suggests that it has additional benefits, including reducing edema, facilitating soft tissue recovery through increased blood flow and lymphatic circulation.⁴⁰ Currently, it is used more as an adjunct to physical therapy as it may help reduce exercise pain when compared to therapy without KT.
• High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT): Recent data suggests that HIIT may have similar effects in improving knee pain, knee function, and quality of life when compared to lower intensity strength training and therapy.⁴¹
• Phonophoresis/Ultrasound: both therapeutic ultrasound and phonophoresis (with topical corticosteroid or NSAID gels) may be beneficial adjusts for short term pain relief in knee OA.^42,43
• Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (ESWT): ESWT utilizes mechanical sound waves in order to influence cellular migration, proliferation, differentiation, or apoptosis. This ability to influence cellular activity with external, mechanical stimuli is known as mechanotransduction. ESWT has been shown to decrease knee joint inflammation, decrease edema, improve subchondral bone architecture, and increase chondrocyte activity for cartilaginous repair.⁴⁴ In recent meta analyses, ESWT improved pain scores by 2 points, increased range of motion, and had symptoms that persisted for 6-12 months.⁴⁵
• Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA): RFA of the genicular nerves has been shown to be a safe and efficacious treatment in knee OA. Traditional (heated) RFA, cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRF), and pulsed radiofrequency ablation (PRF) have been utilized to deliver targeted, thermal damage to the genicular nerves of the knee in order to decrease the transmission of pain signals. These procedures may be done fluoroscopically or with ultrasound guidance.⁴⁶

A recent systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacies of therapeutic ultrasound, phonophoresis, extracorporeal shockwave therapy, and vibration with placebo. Each treatment was done either in isolation or in conjunction with physical therapy. ESWT illustrated statistically significant improvement in pain when compared to placebo. Vibration, ultrasound and phonophoresis were found to be efficacious adjuncts to physical therapy, with phonophoresis illustrating superiority when compared to ultrasound.⁴⁷ However, large scale randomized clinical trials are still required before establishing these modalities as mainstays of treatment in knee OA.

Gaps in the Evidence-Based Knowledge

Additional research is needed in determining factors that help predict which subgroups of patients may benefit from specific interventions. Research is also needed to provide evidence-based recommendations on lifestyle modifications for primary prevention as well as guidance on shaping public policy and population health initiatives.

• The optimal exercise prescription for OA symptom management remains unclear. A recent study illustrated that isokinetic exercises may be superior to isometric or isotonic exercises in the treatment of knee OA with respect to muscle strength measurements and femoral cartilage thickness as evaluated by ultrasound. However, further research is needed to evaluate these various exercises and their impact on knee cartilage quantity, pain, and functional outcomes.⁴⁸
• Better knowledge regarding OA prevention strategies and interventions that can alter the course of OA progression, particularly in the post-traumatic injury knee, is needed.
• Additional research is needed to determine whether there are OA pain phenotypes that are better responders to specific interventions.
• Larger and higher-quality human studies of biologic therapies are needed to confirm beneficial findings from smaller studies.

References

1. Block JA, Cherny D. Management of Knee Osteoarthritis: What Internists Need to Know. Med Clin North Am. 2021 Mar;105(2):367-385. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2020.10.005. PMID: 33589109.
2. Rosenthal BP. Knee Osteoarthritis. In: Scott WN. Insall & Scott Surgery of the Knee. 5th Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone; 2012: 718-722.
3. Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG, Arnold LM, Choi H, Deyo RA, Gabriel S, Hirsch R, Hochberg MC, Hunder GG, Jordan JM, Katz JN, Kremers HM, Wolfe F; National Arthritis Data Workgroup. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States Part II. Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Jan; 58(1): 26-35.
4. Wallace IJ, Worthington S, Felson DT, et al. Knee osteoarthritis has doubled in prevalence since the mid-20th century. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(35):9332-9336.
5. Cleveland RJ, Alvarez C, Schwartz T, et al. The impact of painful knee osteoarthritis on mortality: a community-based cohort study with over 24 years of follow-up. 2019;27(4):593-602.
6. Felson DT, Lawrence RC, Dieppe PA, Hirsch R, Helmick CG, Jordan JM, Kington RS, Lane NE, Nevitt MC, Zhang Y, Sowers M, McAlindon T, Spector TD, Poole AR, Yanovski SZ, Ateshian G, Sharma L, Buckwalter JA, Brandt KD, Fries JF. Osteoarthritis: new insights.
7. Neogi T, Zhang Y. Osteoarthritis prevention. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2011 Mar; 23(2): 185-191.
8. Liu Q, Chu H, LaValley MP, Hunter DJ, Zhang H, Tao L, Zhan S, Lin J, Zhang Y. Prediction models for the risk of total knee replacement: development and validation using data from multicentre cohort studies. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022 Feb;4(2):e125-e134. doi: 10.1016/s2665-9913(21)00324-6. Epub 2022 Jan 5. PMID: 36177295; PMCID: PMC9517949.
9. De Lange-Brokaar BJ, Ioan-Facsinay A, van Osch GJ, Zuurmond AM, Schoones J, Toes RE, Huizinga TW, Kloppenburg M. Synovial inflammation, immune cells and their cytokines in osteoarthritis: a review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012 Dec; 20(12): 1484-1499.
10. Roemer FW, Jarraya M, Collins JE, Kwoh CK, Hayashi D, Hunter DJ, Guermazi A. Structural phenotypes of knee osteoarthritis: potential clinical and research relevance. Skeletal Radiol. 2022 Sep 26. doi: 10.1007/s00256-022-04191-6. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36161341.
11. Trajerova M, Kriegova E, Mikulkova Z, Savara J, Kudelka M, Gallo J. Knee osteoarthritis phenotypes based on synovial fluid immune cells correlate with clinical outcome trajectories. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2022 Sep 17:S1063-4584(22)00856-1. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2022.08.019. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36126821.
12. Hawker GA, Croxford R, Bierman AS, Harvey PJ, Ravi B, Stanaitis I, Lipscombe LL. All-cause mortality and serious cardiovascular events in people with hip and knee osteoarthritis: a population based cohort study. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 7;9(3):e91286.
13. Sharma L. Osteoarthritis of the Knee. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 7;384(1):51-59. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp1903768. PMID: 33406330.
14. Davis AM, King LK, Stanaitis I, Hawker GA. Fundamentals of osteoarthritis: outcome evaluation with patient-reported measures and functional tests. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2022 Jun;30(6):775-785. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2021.07.016. Epub 2021 Sep 15. PMID: 34534660.
15. Sukerkar PA, Doyle Z. Imaging of Osteoarthritis of the Knee. Radiol Clin North Am. 2022 Jul;60(4):605-616. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2022.03.004. PMID: 35672093.
16. Nelson AE. Turning the Page in Osteoarthritis Assessment with the Use of Ultrasound. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2020 Aug 26;22(10):66. doi: 10.1007/s11926-020-00949-w. PMID: 32845396; PMCID: PMC7887707.
17. Chapple CM, Nicholson H, Baxter GD, Abbott JH. Patient characteristics that predict progression of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review of prognostic studies. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Aug; 63(8): 1115-1125.
18. Dunlop D. Relation of physical activity time to incident disability in community dwelling adults with or at risk of knee arthritis: prospective cohort study. British Medical Journal. 2014; 348: 2472.
19. Rivera NV, Parmelee PA, Smith DM. The impact of social interactions and pain on daily positive and negative affect in adults with osteoarthritis of the knee. Aging Ment Health. 2018:1-7.
20. Overton C, Nelson AE, Neogi T. Osteoarthritis Treatment Guidelines from Six Professional Societies: Similarities and Differences. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2022 Aug;48(3):637-657. doi: 10.1016/j.rdc.2022.03.009. Epub 2022 Jul 5. PMID: 35953228; PMCID: PMC9377706.
21. Borg-Stein J, Jayaram P, Colorado BS, de Luigi AJ, Khadavi M, Latzka E, Naber WJ 2nd, Patel S, Sussman WI, Yuan X, Mautner K. AAPM&R guidance statement on platelet rich plasma for knee osteoarthritis. PM R. 2026 Apr 16. doi: 10.1002/pmrj.70144. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41989317.
22. Lim WB, Al-Dadah O. Conservative treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A review of the literature. World J Orthop. 2022 Mar 18;13(3):212-229. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v13.i3.212. PMID: 35317254; PMCID: PMC8935331.
23. Finnoff JT, Hall MM, Adams E, Berkoff D, Concoff AL, Dexter W, Smith J. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 2015 Jan 1;25(1):6-22.
24. Bharadwaj UU, Lynch JA, Joseph GB, Akkaya Z, Nevitt MC, Lane NE, McCulloch CE, Link TM. Intra-articular knee injections and progression of knee osteoarthritis: data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Radiology. 2025 May 27;315(2):e233081.
25. Peck J, Slovek A, Miro P, Vij N, Traube B, Lee C, Berger AA, Kassem H, Kaye AD, Sherman WF, Abd-Elsayed A. A Comprehensive Review of Viscosupplementation in Osteoarthritis of the Knee. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2021 Jul 10;13(2):25549. doi: 10.52965/001c.25549. PMID: 34745480; PMCID: PMC8567800.
26. Ding JB, Hu K. Injectable therapies for knee osteoarthritis. Reumatologia. 2021;59(5):330-339. doi: 10.5114/reum.2021.110612. Epub 2021 Nov 7. PMID: 34819708; PMCID: PMC8609383.
27. Felson DT. Arthroscopy as a treatment for knee osteoarthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010 Feb;24(1):47-50.
28. Shin CS, Lee JH. Arthroscopic treatment for osteoarthritic knee. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2012 Dec;24(4):187-92.
29. Liu Y, Zeng Y, Wu Y, Li M, Xie H, Shen B. A comprehensive comparison between cementless and cemented fixation in the total knee arthroplasty: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg. 2021 Dec;16(1):176.
30. Bensa A, Previtali D, Sangiorgio A, Boffa A, Salerno M, Filardo G. PRP Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: The Improvement Is Clinically Significant and Influenced by Platelet Concentration: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Am J Sports Med. 2025 Mar;53(3):745-754. doi: 10.1177/03635465241246524. Epub 2025 Jan 3. PMID: 39751394; PMCID: PMC11874499.
31. Berrigan WA, Zach Bailowitz, Park A, Reddy A, Liu R, Lansdown D. A Higher Platelet Dose May Yield Better Clinical Outcomes for PRP in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2025 Mar;41(3):809-817.e2. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38513880/
32. Du D, Liang Y. A meta-analysis and systematic review of the clinical efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma combined with hyaluronic acid (PRP + HA) versus PRP monotherapy for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). J Orthop Surg Res. 2025 Jan 17;20(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-05429-w. PMID: 39819683; PMCID: PMC11740359.
33. Hohmann E, Keough N, Frank RM, Rodeo SA. Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Has No Advantage Over Platelet-Rich Plasma and Bone Marrow Aspirate Injections for Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2025 Mar;53(4):988-998. doi: 10.1177/03635465241249940. Epub 2025 Jan 3. PMID: 39751667.
34. Mautner K, Bowers R, Easley K, Fausel Z, Robinson R. Functional Outcomes Following Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Versus Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Injections for Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2019 Nov;8(11):1149-1156. doi: 10.1002/sctm.18-0285. Epub 2019 Jul 21. PMID: 31328447; PMCID: PMC6811695
35. Richter DL, Harrison JL, Faber L, Schrader S, Zhu Y, Pierce C, Watson L, Shetty AK, Schenck RC Jr. Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Injection Reduced Pain Compared With a Saline Control Among Patients With Symptomatic Osteoarthritis of the Knee During 1-Year Follow-Up: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Arthroscopy. 2025 Feb;41(2):248-260. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.08.037. Epub 2024 Sep 5. PMID: 39243998.
36. Mautner K, Gottschalk M, Boden SD, Akard A, Bae WC, Black L, Boggess B, Chatterjee P, Chung CB, Easley KA, Gibson G, Hackel J, Jensen K, Kippner L, Kurtenbach C, Kurtzberg J, Mason RA, Noonan B, Roy K, Valentine V, Yeago C, Drissi H. Cell-based versus corticosteroid injections for knee pain in osteoarthritis: a randomized phase 3 trial. Nat Med. 2023 Dec;29(12):3120-3126. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02632-w. Epub 2023 Nov 2. Erratum in: Nat Med. 2024 Mar;30(3):905. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02776-9. PMID: 37919438; PMCID: PMC10719084.
37. Mautner K, Kaiser JM, Boggess B, Hackel J, Kurtenbach C, Noonan B, Shenvi N, Easley KA, Myer GD, Jayaram P, Gottschalk M, Boden S, Drissi H. Autologous Cell Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis Display Greater Responsiveness Than Allogenic Cellular Products and Corticosteroids in a Sex-Dependent Manner. Am J Sports Med. 2025
38. Gardner JE, Williams CW, Bowers RL. Subchondral versus intra-articular orthobiologic injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a review. Regen Med. 2022 Jun;17(6):389-400. doi: 10.2217/rme-2021-0174. Epub 2022 Apr 12. PMID: 35410486
39. Hernigou P, Bouthors C, Bastard C, Flouzat Lachaniette CH, Rouard H, Dubory A. Subchondral bone or intra-articular injection of bone marrow concentrate mesenchymal stem cells in bilateral knee osteoarthritis: what better postpone knee arthroplasty at fifteen years? A randomized study. Int Orthop. 2021 Feb;45(2):391-399. doi: 10.1007/s00264-020-04687-7. Epub 2020 Jul 2. PMID: 32617651
40. Bialoszewski D., Woźniak W., Zarek S. Clinical efficacy of kinesiology taping in reducing edema of the lower limbs in patients treated with the ilizarov method—preliminary report. Ortopedia Traumatologia Rehabilitacja. 2009;11(1):46–54
41. Hua J, Sun L, Teng Y. Effects of high-intensity strength training in adults with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2022 Sep 14. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000002088. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36111896.
42. Yang FA, Chen HL, Peng CW, Liou TH, Escorpizo R, Chen HC. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of phonophoresis on patients with knee osteoarthritis. Sci Rep. 2022 Jul 27;12(1):12877. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-16084-8. PMID: 35896559; PMCID: PMC9329477.
43. Wu Y, Zhu S, Lv Z, Kan S, Wu Q, Song W, Ning G, Feng S. Effects of therapeutic ultrasound for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2019 Dec;33(12):1863-1875. doi: 10.1177/0269215519866494. Epub 2019 Aug 5. PMID: 31382781.
44. Tenforde AS, Borgstrom HE, DeLuca S, McCormack M, Singh M, Hoo JS, Yun PH. Best practices for extracorporeal shockwave therapy in musculoskeletal medicine: Clinical application and training consideration. PM R. 2022 May;14(5):611-619. doi: 10.1002/pmrj.12790. Epub 2022 Apr 14. PMID: 35187851; PMCID: PMC9321712.
45. Silva AC, Almeida VS, Veras PM, Carnaúba F, Filho JE, Garcia M, Fonseca DS. Effect of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review with meta-analysis and grade recommendations. Clin Rehabil. 2023 Jun;37(6):760-773. doi: 10.1177/02692155221146086. Epub 2022 Dec 15. PMID: 36524275.
46. Liu J, Wang T, Zhu ZH. Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency treatment for improving knee pain and function in knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Jan 15;17(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02906-4. PMID: 35033150; PMCID: PMC8760716.
47. Oliveira S, Andrade R, Valente C, Espregueira-Mendes J, Silva F, Hinckel BB, Carvalho Ó, Leal A. Mechanical-based therapies may reduce pain and disability in some patients with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Knee. 2022 Aug;37:28-46. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2022.05.005. Epub 2022 Jun 3. PMID: 35660536.
48. Benli Küçük E, Özyemişci Taşkıran Ö, Tokgöz N, Meray J. Effects of isokinetic, isometric, and aerobic exercises on clinical variables and knee cartilage volume using magnetic resonance imaging in patients with osteoarthritis. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Jun 17;64(1):8-16. doi: 10.5606/tftrd.2018.795. PMID: 31453484; PMCID: PMC6709604.

Original Version of the Topic

Daniel C. Herman, MD, Ashley D. Zapf, MD, Heather K. Vincent, PhD, Kevin R Vincent, MD PhD. Knee Osteoarthritis. 10/6/2015.

Previous Revision(s) of the Topic

Kevin Vu, BA, William Lian, MD, Donald Kasitinon, MD, Thiru Annaswamy, MD MA. Knee Osteoarthritis. 12/8/2019.

Jaspal Singh, MD, Zainab Shirazi, MD, Mani Singh, MD, Nicholas Tsitsilianos, MD. Knee Osteoarthritis. 1/12/2023

Author Disclosure

Justin Ceasar, MD
Nothing to Disclose

Christian Nicolosi, MD
Nothing to Disclose

Jack Haberl, MD
Nothing to Disclose

Mani Singh, MD
Nothing to Disclose