Jean-François Kaux

Prof. Jean-François Kaux

Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Department, Liège University, Liège, Wallonia, Belgium

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

20Years (2007-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 August 2019 in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Nicola VeroneseNicola Veronese
Nicola Veronese
CCCyrus Cooper
Cyrus Cooper
JRJean-Yves Reginster
Jean-Yves Reginster
MHMarc Hochberg
Marc Hochberg
Jaime BrancoJaime Branco
Jaime Branco
ASAndré Scheen
André Scheen
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and osteoarthritis (OA) are common diseases that frequently co-exist, along with overweight/obesity. While the mechanical impact of excess body weight on joints may explain lower limb OA, we sought to explore whether T2DM is linked to OA outside of excess weight and whether T2DM may play a role in OA pathophysiology. The consequence of T2DM on OA outcomes is a question of research interest. We conducted a critical review of the literature to explore the association between T2DM and OA, whether any association is site-specific for OA, and whether the presence of T2DM impacts on OA outcomes. We also reviewed the literature to assess the safety of anti-OA treatments in patients with T2DM. T2DM has a pathogenic effect on OA through 2 major pathways involving oxidative stress and low-grade chronic inflammation resulting from chronic hyperglycemia and insulin resistance. T2DM is a risk factor for OA progression and has a negative impact on arthroplasty outcomes. Evidence is mounting for safety concerns with some of the most frequently prescribed anti-OA medications, including paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and corticosteroid injections, while other anti-OA medications may be safely prescribed in OA patients with T2DM, such as glucosamine and intra-articular hyaluronic acid. Future research is needed to better understand whether diabetes control and prevention can modulate OA occurrence and progression. The selection of therapy to treat OA symptoms in patients with T2DM may require careful consideration of the evidence based to avoid untoward safety issues.

18 March 2015 in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FBFanny Buckinx
Fanny Buckinx
Jean-Yves ReginsterJean-Yves Reginster
Jean-Yves Reginster
NDNadia Dardenne
Nadia Dardenne
JCJean-Louis Croisiser
Jean-Louis Croisiser
JKJean-François Kaux
Jean-François Kaux
Olivier BruyèreOlivier Bruyère
Olivier Bruyère
Besides magnetic resonance imaging, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) seems the most reliable tool to evaluate body composition and is often considered as the gold standard in clinical practice. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) could provide a simpler, portative, and less expensive alternative. Because the body composition assessment by BIA is device-dependent, the aim of this study was to appraise the concordance between the specific bioelectrical impedance device InBody S10 and DXA for the body composition evaluation. Body composition, included appendicular lean mass divided by height squared (ALM/ht2) was measured by DXA (Hologic QDR Discovery device) and by BIA (InBody S10 Biospace device). Agreement between tools was assessed by means of the Bland Altman method and reliability was determined using the IntraClass Coefficient (ICC). ICC was also computed to assess the reliability of the test-retest performed by the same operator or by two different ones. A total of 219 subjects were enrolled in this study (mean age: 43.7 ± 19.1 years old, 51.6% of women). For the ALM/ht2, reliability of the test-retest of the BIA was high with an ICC of 0.89 (95%CI: 0.86-0.92) when performed by the same operator and an ICC of 0.77 (95%CI: 0.72-0.82) when performed by two different operators. Agreement between ALM/ht2 assessed by DXA and BIA was low (ICC = 0.37 (95%CI: 0.25-0.48)). Mean ALM/ht2 was 9.19 ± 1.39 kg/m2 with BIA and 7.34 ± 1.34 kg/m2 with DXA, (p < 0001). A formula developed using a multiple regression analysis, and taking into account muscle mass assessed by BIA, as well as sex and body mass index, explains 89% of the ALM/ht2 assessed by DXA. Although our results show that the measure of ALM/ht2 by BIA is reliable, the agreement between DXA and BIA is low. Indeed, BIA seems to overestimate ALM/ht2 compared to DXA and, consequently, it is important to use an adapted formula to obtain measurement of the appendicular lean mass by BIA close to that measured by DXA.

1 June 2011
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JKJean-François Kaux
Jean-François Kaux
BFBénédicte Forthomme
Bénédicte Forthomme
CGCaroline Le Goff
Caroline Le Goff
JCJean-Michel Crielaard
Jean-Michel Crielaard
JCJean-Louis Croisier
Jean-Louis Croisier

10 August 2012 in Wound Repair and Regeneration
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JKJean-François Kaux
Jean-François Kaux
PDPierre V. Drion
Pierre V. Drion
ACAlain Colige
Alain Colige
FPFrédéric Pascon
Frédéric Pascon
VLVincent Libertiaux
Vincent Libertiaux
JCJean‐Michel Crielaard
Jean‐Michel Crielaard

30 July 2012 in Journal of Orthopaedic Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JKJean-François Kaux
Jean-François Kaux
PDPierre Drion
Pierre Drion
VLVincent Libertiaux
Vincent Libertiaux
ACAlain Colige
Alain Colige
AHAudrey Hoffmann
Audrey Hoffmann
JCJean‐Louis Croisier
Jean‐Louis Croisier

1 June 2011 in Pathologie Biologie
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JKJean-François Kaux
Jean-François Kaux
CGC. Le Goff
C. Le Goff
LSL. Seidel
L. Seidel
PPP. Péters
P. Péters
AGA. Gothot
A. Gothot
JCJ.-M. Crielaard
J.-M. Crielaard