Sarcopenic obesity and pain sensitivity, central sensitization–related symptoms, and physical function among patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: A cross-sectional study
Authors' conclusion
Differences in pain-related characteristics and physical function were observed across body composition phenotypes. Exploratory comparisons showed higher CSI-9 scores and lower affected-knee PPTs in patients with sarcopenic obesity than in those with no obesity/sarcopenia and obesity. However, the mechanisms underlying these differences remain unclear because neuropathic-like pain was not assessed. Further studies incorporating neuropathic-like pain assessment are needed to clarify associations between body composition phenotypes and pain-related characteristics.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), categorized into four body composition phenotypes based on the Japanese Working Group on Sarcopenic Obesity criteriapatients undergoing TKA, 55 had sarcopenic obesity
- Participants
- 636 patients
- Exposure
- Exploratory pairwise comparisons between the sarcopenic obesity group and the other groups
- SARCOPENIC OBESITYn = 55
- Outcome
- Central sensitization-related symptoms (Central Sensitization Inventory-9, CSI-9), adjusted mean difference
Methodological detailsanalyses of covariance adjusted for age, sex, Kellgren-Lawrence grade, C-reactive protein, Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index, and Life-Space Assessment, exploratory pairwise comparisons between the sarcopenic obesity group and the other groups
- Analyses of covariance adjusted for age, sex, Kellgren-Lawrence grade, C-reactive protein, Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index, and Life-Space Assessment
- Exploratory pairwise comparisons between the sarcopenic obesity group and the other groups
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Adjusted mean difference (95% CI)
SARCOPENIC OBESITYvs NO OBESITY/SARCOPENIA
3.89(0.96–6.82)
SARCOPENIC OBESITYvs OBESITY
3.47(0.58–6.37)
Between SARCOPENIC OBESITY and SARCOPENIAdirection not stated
1.28(−2.32 to 4.88)
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Adjusted mean difference (kgf/cm²) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Pressure pain threshold (PPT) at the affected knee, adjusted mean differenceSARCOPENIC OBESITYvs NO OBESITY/SARCOPENIAPrimary outcome; exploratory pairwise comparisons | −0.64 (−1.15 to −0.13) | |
| Pressure pain threshold (PPT) at the affected knee, adjusted mean differenceSARCOPENIC OBESITYvs OBESITYPrimary outcome; exploratory pairwise comparisons | −0.52 (−0.88 to −0.16) | |
| Pressure pain threshold (PPT) at the affected knee, adjusted mean differenceSARCOPENIC OBESITYvs SARCOPENIAPrimary outcome; exploratory pairwise comparisons | −0.33 (−1.17 to 0.52) | |
| −1.5−1−0.500.51Difference, kgf/cm² (linear scale) |
| Outcome | Adjusted mean difference (kgf/kg) (CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Secondary: quadriceps strengthSARCOPENIC OBESITYvs NO OBESITY/SARCOPENIA | −0.06 (−0.11 to −0.01) | |
| −0.15−0.1−0.0500.05Difference, kgf/kg (linear scale) |
| Outcome | Adjusted mean difference (s) (CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Secondary: Timed Up and Go (TUG)SARCOPENIC OBESITYvs NO OBESITY/SARCOPENIASlower TUG performance with sarcopenic obesity | 2.14 (0.22–4.06) | |
| −20246Difference, s (linear scale) |
Original publication
Sarcopenic obesity and pain sensitivity, central sensitization–related symptoms, and physical function among patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: A cross-sectional study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. Published 28 October 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →