Treatment Invasiveness and Illness Perceptions Are Strongly Associated With Outcome Expectations in Patients Treated for Hand or Wrist Conditions: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have shown that more-positive outcome expectations are associated with better treatment outcomes. Although this has not been shown to represent a causal relationship, there nonetheless is an interest in positively modifying outcome expectations to improve treatment outcomes. However, little is known about what is independently associated with outcome expectations in clinical practice. For example, it is unknown to what extent expectations are associated with treatment or patient characteristics such as sociodemographics or with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on patient perceptions of physical or mental health or illness. Studying factors associated with outcome expectations may provide relevant information for clinicians and researchers aiming to improve outcome expectations. Improving expectations might, in turn, improve treatment outcomes. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Which factors (that is, sociodemographics, PROMs, illness perceptions, treatment, surgeon, and location) are independently associated with outcome expectations in patients with hand or wrist conditions? METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. Between July 2018 and December 2021, we screened 21,327 patients with a diagnosed hand or wrist condition with complete baseline sociodemographic data such as age and workload. Sixty percent (12,765 of 21,327) of patients completed all relevant PROMs. We excluded patients receiving rare treatments, leaving 58% (12,345 of 21,327) for inclusion in the final sample. Those who participated were more often scheduled for surgical treatment and had higher expectations. We performed a multilevel analysis involving two steps. First, we evaluated whether patients receiving the same treatment, being counseled by the same surgeon, or being treated at the same location have more similar outcome expectations. We found that only patients receiving the same treatment had more similar outcome expectations. Therefore, we used a multilevel regression model to account for this correlation within treatments, and added treatment characteristics (such as nonsurgical versus minor or major surgery) to potential explanatory factors. Second, in the multilevel hierarchical regression analysis, we added sociodemographics (Model 1), PROMs for physical and mental health (Model 2), illness perceptions (Model 3), and treatment characteristics (most-definitive model) to assess the explained variance in outcome expectations per step and the relative association with outcome expectations. RESULTS: Sociodemographic factors such as age and workload explained 1% of the variance in outcome expectations. An additional 2% was explained by baseline PROMs for physical and mental health, 9% by illness perceptions, and 18% by treatment characteristics, resulting in an explained variance of 29% of the most-definitive model. A large number of patient and treatment characteristics were associated with outcome expectations. We used standardized betas to compare the magnitude of the effect of the different continuous and categorical variables. Among the associated variables, minor surgery (standardized beta [ß] = 0.56 [95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.68]; p < 0.001) and major surgery (ß = 0.61 [95% CI 0.49 to 0.73]; p < 0.001) had the strongest positive association with outcome expectations (receiving surgery is associated with higher outcome expectations than nonsurgical treatment). A longer illness duration expected by the patient (-0.23 [95% CI -0.24 to -0.21]; p < 0.001) and being treated for the same condition as before (-0.08 [95% CI -0.14 to -0.03]; p = 0.003) had the strongest negative association with outcome expectations. CONCLUSION: Outcome expectations are mainly associated with the invasiveness of the treatment and by patients' illness perceptions; patients before surgical treatment have more positive expectations of the treatment outcome than patients before nonsurgical treatment, even after accounting for differences in clinical and psychosocial profiles. In addition, patients with a more-positive perception of their illness had more-positive expectations of their treatment. Our findings suggest expectation management should be tailored to the specific treatment (such as surgical versus nonsurgical) and the specific patient (including their perception of their illness). It may be more beneficial to test and implement expectation management strategies for nonsurgical treatments such as physical therapy than for surgical treatments, given that our findings indicate a greater need to do so. An additional advantage of such a strategy is that successful interventions may prevent converting to surgical interventions, which is a goal of the stepped-care principles of standard care. Future studies might investigate the causality of the association between pretreatment expectations and outcomes by performing an experimental study such as a randomized controlled trial, in which boosting expectations is compared with usual care in nonsurgical and surgical groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

The Ultrashort Mental Health Screening Tool Is a Valid and Reliable Measure With Added Value to Support Decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Mental health influences symptoms, outcomes, and decision-making in musculoskeletal healthcare. Implementing measures of mental health in clinical practice can be challenging. An ultrashort screening tool for mental health with a low burden is currently unavailable but could be used as a conversation starter, expectation management tool, or decision support tool. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Which items of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4), and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ) are the most discriminative and yield a high correlation with the total scores of these questionnaires? (2) What is the construct validity and added clinical value (explained variance for pain and hand function) of an ultrashort four-item mental health screening tool? (3) What is the test-retest reliability of the screening tool? (4) What is the response time for the ultrashort screening tool? METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study. Data collection was part of usual care at Xpert Clinics, the Netherlands, but prospective measurements were added to this study. Between September 2017 and January 2022, we included 19,156 patients with hand and wrist conditions. We subdivided these into four samples: a test set to select the screener items (n = 18,034), a validation set to determine whether the selected items were solid (n = 1017), a sample to determine the added clinical value (explained variance for pain and hand function, n = 13,061), and a sample to assess the test-retest reliability (n = 105). Patients were eligible for either sample if they completed all relevant measurements of interest for that particular sample. To create an ultrashort screening tool that is valid, reliable, and has added value, we began by picking the most discriminatory items (that is, the items that were most influential for determining the total score) from the PCS, PHQ-4, and B-IPQ using chi-square automated interaction detection (a machine-learning algorithm). To assess construct validity (how well our screening tool assesses the constructs of interest), we correlated these items with the associated sum score of the full questionnaire in the test and validation sets. We compared the explained variance of linear models for pain and function using the screening tool items or the original sum scores of the PCS, PHQ-4, and B-IPQ to further assess the screening tool's construct validity and added value. We evaluated test-retest reliability by calculating weighted kappas, ICCs, and the standard error of measurement. RESULTS: We identified four items and used these in the screening tool. The screening tool items were highly correlated with the PCS (Pearson coefficient = 0.82; p < 0.001), PHQ-4 (0.87; p < 0.001), and B-IPQ (0.85; p < 0.001) sum scores, indicating high construct validity. The full questionnaires explained only slightly more variance in pain and function (10% to 22%) than the screening tool did (9% to 17%), again indicating high construct validity and much added clinical value of the screening tool. Test-retest reliability was high for the PCS (ICC 0.75, weighted kappa 0.75) and B-IPQ (ICC 0.70 to 0.75, standard error of measurement 1.3 to 1.4) items and moderate for the PHQ-4 item (ICC 0.54, weighted kappa 0.54). The median response time was 43 seconds, against more than 4 minutes for the full questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Our ultrashort, valid, and reliable screening tool for pain catastrophizing, psychologic distress, and illness perception can be used before clinician consultation and may serve as a conversation starter, an expectation management tool, or a decision support tool. The clinical utility of the screening tool is that it can indicate that further testing is warranted, guide a clinician when considering a consultation with a mental health specialist, or support a clinician in choosing between more invasive and less invasive treatments. Future studies could investigate how the tool can be used optimally and whether using the screening tool affects daily clinic decisions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.

Prevalence of Complications and Association With Patient-Reported Outcomes After Trapeziectomy With a Weilby Sling: A Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to report complications during the first year after trapeziectomy with Weilby sling using a standardized tool designed by the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measures. The secondary aim was to determine the association of complications and patient-reported outcomes 12 months after surgery. METHODS: We included patients who underwent trapeziectomy with Weilby sling between November 2013 and December 2018. All complications during the first year were scored using the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Complications in Hand and Wrist conditions (ICHAW) tool. Pain and hand function were measured before surgery and 12 months after surgery using the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Minimally Important Change thresholds of 18.6 for MHQ pain and 9.4 for MHQ function were used to determine clinical importance. RESULTS: Of 531 patients after trapeziectomy with Weilby sling, 65% had an uneventful recovery, 16% experienced ICHAW Grade 1 deviations only, and 19% experienced Grade 2 or 3 deviations, including requiring antibiotics, corticosteroid injections, or additional surgery. On average, patients improved in pain and hand function, even in the presence of ICHAW events. Although all ICHAW grades were associated with poorer patient-reported outcomes 12 months after surgery, Grade 2 and 3 exceeded the Minimally Important Change threshold for pain and/or function. CONCLUSIONS: In 531 patients, 65% had an uneventful recovery, 16% experienced ICHAW Grade 1 deviations only, and 19% experienced grade 2 or 3 deviations. We recommend describing Grade 1 as "adverse protocol deviations" and grade 2 and 3 as complications, because of clinically relevant poorer patient-reported outcomes 12 months after surgery. The ICHAW is a promising tool to evaluate systematically and compare complications in hand surgery, although we recommend further evaluation. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Which Factors Are Associated With Satisfaction With Treatment Results in Patients With Hand and Wrist Conditions? A Large Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Satisfaction with treatment results is an important outcome domain in striving for patient-centered and value-based healthcare. Although numerous studies have investigated factors associated with satisfaction with treatment results, most studies used relatively small samples. Additionally, many studies have only investigated univariable associations instead of multivariable associations; to our knowledge, none have investigated the independent association of baseline sociodemographics, quality of life, improvement in pain and function, experiences with healthcare delivery, and baseline measures of mental health with satisfaction with treatment results. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What factors are independently associated with satisfaction with treatment results at 3 months post-treatment in patients treated for common hand and wrist conditions? (2) What factors are independently associated with the willingness to undergo the treatment again at 3 months post-treatment in patients treated for common hand and wrist conditions? Among the factors under study were baseline sociodemographics, quality of life, improvement in pain and function, experiences with healthcare delivery, and baseline measures of mental health. METHODS: Between August 2018 and May 2020, we included patients who underwent carpal tunnel release, nonsurgical or surgical treatment for thumb-base osteoarthritis, trigger finger release, limited fasciectomy for Dupuytren contracture, or nonsurgical treatment for midcarpal laxity in one of the 28 centers of Xpert Clinics in the Netherlands. We screened 5859 patients with complete sociodemographics and data at baseline. Thirty-eight percent (2248 of 5859) of these patients had complete data at 3 months. Finally, participants were eligible for inclusion if they provided a relevant answer to the three patient-reported experience measure (PREM) items. A total of 424 patients did not do this because they answered "I don't know" or "not applicable" to a PREM item, leaving 31% (1824 of 5859) for inclusion in the final sample. A validated Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire was administered at 3 months, which identified the patients' level of satisfaction with treatment results so far on a 5-point Likert scale (research question 1, with answers of poor, moderate, fair, good, or excellent) and the patients' willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances (research question 2, with answers of yes or no). A hierarchical logistic regression model was used to identify whether baseline sociodemographics, quality of life, change in outcome (patient-reported outcome measures for hand function and pain), baseline measures of mental health (including treatment credibility [the extent to which a patient attributes credibility to a treatment] and expectations, illness perception, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, and depression), and PREMs were associated with each question of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire at 3 months post-treatment. We dichotomized responses to our first question as good and excellent, which were considered more satisfied, and poor, moderate, and fair, which were considered less satisfied. After dichotomization, 57% (1042 of 1824) of patients were classified as more satisfied with the treatment results. RESULTS: The following variables were independently associated with satisfaction with treatment results, with an area under the curve of 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.84) (arranged from the largest to the smallest standardized odds ratio [SOR]): greater decrease in pain during physical load (standardized odds ratio 2.52 [95% CI 2.18 to 2.92]; p < 0.001), patient's positive experience with the explanation of the pros and cons of the treatment (determined with the question: "Have you been explained the pros and cons of the treatment or surgery?") (SOR 1.83 [95% CI 1.41 to 2.38]; p < 0.001), greater improvement in hand function (SOR 1.76 [95% CI 1.54 to 2.01]; p < 0.001), patients' positive experience with the advice for at-home care (determined with the question: "Were you advised by the healthcare providers on how to deal with your illness or complaints in your home situation?") (SOR 1.57 [95% CI 1.21 to 2.04]; p < 0.001), patient's better personal control (determined with the question: "How much control do you feel you have over your illness?") (SOR 1.24 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.40]; p < 0.001), patient's more positive treatment expectations (SOR 1.23 [95% CI 1.04 to 1.46]; p = 0.02), longer expected illness duration by the patient (SOR 1.20 [95% CI 1.04 to 1.37]; p = 0.01), a smaller number of symptoms the patient saw as part of the illness (SOR 0.84 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.97]; p = 0.02), and less concern about the illness the patient experiences (SOR 0.84 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.99]; p = 0.04). For willingness to undergo the treatment again, the following variables were independently associated with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.83) (arranged from the largest to the smallest standardized OR): patient's positive experience with the information about the pros and cons (determined with the question: "Have you been explained the pros and cons of the treatment or surgery?") (SOR 2.05 [95% CI 1.50 to 2.80]; p < 0.001), greater improvement in hand function (SOR 1.80 [95% CI 1.54 to 2.11]; p < 0.001), greater decrease in pain during physical load (SOR 1.74 [95% CI 1.48 to 2.07]; p < 0.001), patient's positive experience with the advice for at home (determined with the question: "Were you advised by the healthcare providers on how to deal with your illness or complaints in your home situation?") (SOR 1.52 [95% CI 1.11 to 2.07]; p = 0.01), patient's positive experience with shared decision-making (determined with the question: "Did you decide together with the care providers which care or treatment you will receive?") (SOR 1.45 [95% CI 1.06 to 1.99]; p = 0.02), higher credibility the patient attributes to the treatment (SOR 1.44 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.73]; p < 0.001), longer symptom duration (SOR 1.27 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.52]; p < 0.01), and patient's better understanding of the condition (SOR 1.17 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.34]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that to directly improve satisfaction with treatment results, clinicians might seek to: (1) improve the patient's experience with healthcare delivery, (2) try to influence illness perception, and (3) boost treatment expectations and credibility. Future research should confirm whether these suggestions are valid and perhaps also investigate whether satisfaction with treatment results can be predicted (instead of explained, as was done in this study). Such prediction models, as well as other decision support tools that investigate patient-specific needs, may influence experience with healthcare delivery, expectations, or illness perceptions, which in turn may improve satisfaction with treatment results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Patients With Higher Treatment Outcome Expectations Are More Satisfied With the Results of Nonoperative Treatment for Thumb Base Osteoarthritis: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how satisfaction with treatment outcome is associated with patient mindset and Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ) scores at baseline and 3 months in patients receiving nonoperative treatment for first carpometacarpal joint (CMC-1) osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Cohort study SETTING: A total of 20 outpatient locations of a clinic for hand surgery and hand therapy in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=308) receiving nonoperative treatment for CMC-1 OA, including exercise therapy, an orthosis, or both, between September 2017 and February 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Nonoperative treatment (ie, exercise therapy, an orthosis, or both) MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Satisfaction with treatment outcomes was measured after 3 months of treatment. We measured total MHQ score at baseline and at 3 months. As baseline mindset factors, patients completed questionnaires on treatment outcome expectations, illness perceptions, pain catastrophizing, and psychological distress. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis and mediation analysis to identify factors associated with satisfaction with treatment outcomes. RESULTS: More positive pretreatment outcome expectations were associated with a higher probability of being satisfied with treatment outcomes at 3 months (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.25). Only a relatively small part (33%) of this association was because of a higher total MHQ score at 3 months. None of the other mindset and hand function variables at baseline were associated with satisfaction with treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that patients with higher pretreatment outcome expectations are more likely to be satisfied with treatment outcomes after 3 months of nonoperative treatment for CMC-1 OA. This association could only partially be explained by a better functional outcome at 3 months for patients who were satisfied. Health care providers treating patients nonoperatively for CMC-1 OA should be aware of the importance of expectations and may take this into account in pretreatment counseling.

Test-retest Reliability and Construct Validity of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire in Patients with Hand and Wrist Conditions: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: A patient's satisfaction with a treatment result is an important outcome domain as clinicians increasingly focus on patient-centered, value-based healthcare. However, to our knowledge, there are no validated satisfaction metrics focusing on treatment results for hand and wrist conditions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among patients who were treated for hand and wrist conditions, we asked: (1) What is the test-retest reliability of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire? (2) What is the construct validity of that outcomes tool? METHODS: This was a prospective study using two samples: a test-retest reliability sample and a construct validity sample. For the test-retest sample, data collection took place between February 2020 and May 2020, and we included 174 patients at the end of their treatment with complete baseline data that included both the primary test and the retest. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with a mean time difference of 7.2 ± 1.6 days. For the construct validity sample, data collection took place between January 2012 and May 2020. We included 3742 patients who completed the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire, VAS, and the Net Promotor Score (NPS) at 3 months. Construct validity was evaluated using hypothesis testing in which we correlated the patients' level of satisfaction to the willingness to undergo the treatment again, VAS scores, and the NPS. We performed additional hypothesis testing on 2306 patients who also completed the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Satisfaction with the treatment result was measured as the patients' level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and their willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances. RESULTS: We found high reliability for level of satisfaction measured on Likert scale (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86 [95% CI 0.81 to 0.89]) and almost-perfect agreement for both level of satisfaction measured on the Likert scale (weighted kappa 0.86 [95% CI 0.80 to 0.91]) and willingness to undergo the treatment again (kappa 0.81 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.92]) of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire. Construct validity was good to excellent as seven of the eight hypotheses were confirmed. In the confirmed hypotheses, there was a moderate-to-strong correlation with VAS pain, VAS function, NPS, MHQ pain, and MHQ general hand function (Spearman rho ranged from 0.43 to 0.67; all p < 0.001) and a strong to very strong correlation with VAS satisfaction and MHQ satisfaction (Spearman rho 0.73 and 0.71; both p < 0.001). The rejected hypothesis indicated only a moderate correlation between the level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and the willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances (Spearman rho 0.44; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire has good-to-excellent construct validity and very high test-retest reliability in patients with hand and wrist conditions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This questionnaire can be used to reliably and validly measure satisfaction with treatment result in striving for patient-centered care and value-based healthcare. Future research should investigate predictors of variation in satisfaction with treatment results.

Patients With Thumb-base Osteoarthritis Scheduled for Surgery Have More Symptoms, Worse Psychological Profile, and Higher Expectations Than Nonsurgical Counterparts: A Large Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psychological characteristics, such as depression, anxiety or negative illness perception are highly prevalent in patients with several types of OA. It is unclear whether there are differences in the clinical and psychological characteristics of patients with thumb carpometacarpal (CMC-1) osteoarthritis (OA) scheduled for nonsurgical treatment and those with surgical treatment. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What are the differences in baseline sociodemographic characteristics and clinical characteristics (including pain, hand function, and health-related quality of life) between patients with thumb CMC-1 OA scheduled for surgery and those treated nonoperatively? (2) What are the differences in psychological characteristics between patients scheduled for surgery and those treated nonsurgically, for treatment credibility, expectations, illness perception, pain catastrophizing, and anxiety and depression? (3) What is the relative contribution of baseline sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological characteristics to the probability of being scheduled for surgery? METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using observational data. Patients with CMC-1 OA completed outcome measures before undergoing either nonsurgical or surgical treatment. Between September 2017 and June 2018, 1273 patients were screened for eligibility. In total, 584 participants were included: 208 in the surgery group and 376 in the nonsurgery group. Baseline sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological characteristics were compared between groups, and a hierarchical logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the relative contribution of psychological characteristics to being scheduled for surgery, over and above clinical and sociodemographic variables. Baseline measures included pain, hand function, satisfaction with the patient's hand, health-related quality of life, treatment credibility and expectations, illness perception, pain catastrophizing, and anxiety and depression. RESULTS: Patients in the surgery group had longer symptom duration, more often a second opinion, higher pain, treatment credibility and expectations and worse hand function, satisfaction, HRQoL, illness perception and pain catastrophizing compared with the non-surgery group (effect sizes ranged from 0.20 to 1.20; p values ranged from < 0.001 to 0.044). After adjusting for sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors, we found that the following increased the probability of being scheduled for surgery: longer symptom duration (standardized odds ratio [SOR], 1.86; p = 0.004), second-opinion visit (SOR, 3.81; p = 0.027), lower satisfaction with the hand (SOR, 0.65; p = 0.004), higher treatment expectations (SOR, 5.04; p < 0.001), shorter perceived timeline (SOR, 0.70; p = 0.011), worse personal control (SOR, 0.57; p < 0.001) and emotional response (SOR, 1.40; p = 0.040). The hierarchical logistic regression analysis including sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors provided the highest area under the curve (sociodemographics alone: 0.663 [95% confidence interval 0.618 to 0.709]; sociodemographics and clinical: 0.750 [95% CI 0.708 to 0.791]; sociodemographics, clinical and psychological: 0.900 [95% CI 0.875 to 0.925]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients scheduled to undergo surgery for CMC-1 OA have a worse psychological profile than those scheduled for nonsurgical treatment. Our findings suggest that psychological characteristics should be considered during shared decision-making, and they might indicate if psychological interventions, training in coping strategies, and patient education are needed. Future studies should prospectively investigate the influence of psychological characteristics on the outcomes of patients with CMC-1 OA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Treatment of menstrual migraine; multidisciplinary or mono-disciplinary approach.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare a multidisciplinary approach of menstrual (related) migraine, combining the neurological and gynaecological consultation, to a mono-disciplinary approach involving neurological treatment. There is a clear relationship between the menstruation cycle and the occurrence of migraine (menstrual migraine). Nowadays the treatment of menstrual (related) migraine is performed by a neurologist. A treatment with attention to hormonal treatment seems more convenient. METHODS: This retrospective study was performed in a cohort using data of 88 women with menstrual (related) migraine who visited the menstrual migraine clinic between 2012 and 2014 (intervention group). The results were compared to a historical control group, which consisted of women with menstrual (related) migraine who were treated before 2012 and received a mono-disciplinary approach. RESULTS: In the intervention group the Headache Impact (HIT) score significantly improved (65 to 59 points). The mean headache days per month declined significantly (from 6 to 3.83 days) and these women needed less use of pain medication. In the control group the decline in HIT score was less striking (65 to 63.5 points) and the mean headache days per month increased (6 to 6,5 days). It appeared that 20 out of 27 patients in the control group required a gynaecological consultation in course of time. CONCLUSION: A multidisicplinary treatment of women with menstrual (related) migraine gives better results compared to a mono-disciplinary approach. These results should be interpreted with caution as we performed a retrospective study with a relative small control group.

Trapeziometacarpal Arthrodesis or Trapeziectomy with Ligament Reconstruction in Primary Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A 5-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To compare the long-term outcomes of trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) with trapeziometacarpal arthrodesis for osteoarthritis (OA) of the basal thumb joint. METHODS: Patients were evaluated for pain, daily functioning, strength, and complications after a mean follow-up of 5.3 years. Generalized estimating equations statistics were used to compare repeated measurements over time in both groups. RESULTS: After 5 years, patients who had trapeziectomy with LRTI had significantly better pain reduction and function than the arthrodesis group. Pain and function in the LRTI group continued to improve compared with the results 1 year after surgery, whereas the arthrodesis group did not change. Grip and pinch strength were higher than 1 year after surgery but were not different between groups. In the arthrodesis group, 1 patient was reoperated for nonunion between 1 year and a mean of 5 years after surgery, resulting in a total of 18% nonunion. Another patient underwent reoperation for hardware-related pain. One patient from each group required reoperation because of pain due to scaphotrapeziotrapezoid OA. CONCLUSIONS: Trapeziectomy with LRTI leads to better pain reduction and functional outcome after between 1 and 5 years compared with trapeziometacarpal arthrodesis in women over 40 years old with OA stages II to III. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

The Effect of a Bone Tunnel During Ligament Reconstruction for Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A 5-Year Follow-up.

PURPOSE: To compare in trapeziometacarpal (TMC) osteoarthritis the effects of trapeziectomy with tendon interposition and ligament reconstruction (LRTI) with or without a bone tunnel after a mean follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: We randomized 79 women (aged 40 years or older) with stage IV TMC osteoarthritis to either trapeziectomy with LRTI using a bone tunnel (Burton-Pellegrini) or a tendon sling arthroplasty (Weilby). Before surgery and at 3 months and 1 year after surgery, patients were evaluated for pain, function, strength, satisfaction, and complications. Of these patients, 72% were evaluated after a mean follow-up of 5 years (range, 3.8-6.4 years). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in function and pain (Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation) between treatment groups after a mean follow-up of 5 years. In addition, grip and pinch strength, satisfaction, and persisting complications did not differ between groups. Three patients in the Weilby group had repeat surgery (2 for symptomatic scaphotrapezoidal osteoarthritis and 1 elsewhere) and one in the Burton-Pellegrini group operated on again elsewhere. Furthermore, 3 patients who were first conservatively treated for a trigger finger or neuroma were operated on again because conservative therapy failed. Two more patients were operated on again because of de Quervain tendinitis and carpal tunnel syndrome. The overall treatment effect of both groups together showed no significant differences between results at 1 and 5 years after surgery, except for grip strength, which improved for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that improved function, strength, and satisfaction obtained at 1 year after trapeziectomy with LRTI with or without the use of a bone tunnel for stage IV TMC thumb osteoarthritis was maintained after 5 years. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic I.

Conservative treatment of thumb base osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To provide a systematic review of randomized controlled trials regarding the conservative treatment of thumb base osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in the electronic bibliographic databases Medline (Pubmed) and Embase (both starting year to May 2014) using predetermined criteria for studies on nonoperative treatment of thumb base OA. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Systematic evaluation demonstrated the following: (1) Hand therapy can possibly reduce pain. However, owing to the lack of good-quality (randomized controlled) trials with sufficient follow-up time, no proper conclusions can be drawn. (2) Although both steroid and hyaluronate intra-articular injections can provide pain relief, most authors conclude that injection of hyaluronate is more effective. Follow-up is rather short with a maximum of 12 months in 1 study. Furthermore, study comparison is hampered by heterogeneity of study design and outcome parameters. (3) The use of orthoses reduces pain without effect on function, strength, or dexterity. Included studies used various types of orthoses. Follow-up times varied (2 wk-7 y). (4) There is no justification for the use of transdermal steroid delivery. (5) There is insufficient evidence justifying the use of leech therapy. (6) There are no high-level evidence studies specifically evaluating the effect of analgesics and patient education in joint protection in patients with thumb base OA. CONCLUSIONS: There are only a few high-quality studies addressing the conservative treatment of trapeziometacarpal OA. Available evidence suggests only some effect of orthoses and intra-articular hyaluronate or steroid injections.

Comparison of arthroplasties with or without bone tunnel creation for thumb basal joint arthritis: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the results for treatment of basal thumb osteoarthritis with and without the use of a bone tunnel at the base of the first metacarpal. METHODS: Women aged 40 years or older with stage IV osteoarthritis were randomized to 1 of 2 treatments. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 and 12 months by assessing pain, outcome function measures, range of motion, strength, time to return to work or activities, satisfaction with the results, and complication rate. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were enrolled in this study. Three months after surgery, Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation pain and total scores were significantly improved in the bone tunnel group compared with the tunnel-free group. At 12 months, however, we found no significant differences for all outcome scores between groups. In addition, we observed no significant differences between groups in strength, duration to return to work or activities, patient satisfaction, and complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: After the bone tunnel technique, patients have better function and less pain 3 months after surgery than do those in the non-bone tunnel group, which indicates faster recovery. However, 12 months after surgery, the functional outcome was similar. Because of faster recovery, we prefer the bone tunnel technique in the treatment of stage IV osteoarthritis. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic I.

Recurrence rate and patient-reported outcomes after wedge excision of carpal boss.

The treatment of carpal boss is primarily conservative. Surgical treatment by performing a wedge excision of the bony protrusion, is possible. However, a common belief exists that carpal boss should not be operated because of the high recurrence rate. Additionally, little is known about the clinical outcomes of wedge excision and the preferred post-operative treatment. Patients with carpal boss and persisting pain who underwent wedge excision after conservative treatment were included. They received questionnaires before and three months after surgery. The primary outcomes were pain and hand function measured using patient-reported wrist evaluations (PRWE). Secondarily, recurrence, patient satisfaction and time until return to work were evaluated. These clinical outcomes were also compared between patients who received a plaster splint or a pressure dressing post-operatively. 76 patients were included. Three months after surgery, a significant improvement in PRWE was seen, for both pain and function. A re-operation rate for recurrent carpal boss of 13% was observed. After three months, 58% of patients were satisfied and 73% had returned to work. While no differences in clinical outcomes were found, patients were more satisfied after receiving a pressure dressing than a plaster splint post-operatively. The current study demonstrates encouraging early outcomes after wedge excision, and a low recurrence re-operation rate. Furthermore, a pressure dressing seems preferable post-operatively compared to a plaster splint.

Reconstruction of an early stage SLAC wrist with the 3-LT procedure: A controversial reappraisal.

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that the three-ligament tenodesis (3-LT) procedure is still sufficient - even in scapholunate advanced collapse (SLAC) cases - to reduce pain and improve wrist function. We compared patient-reported outcomes of scapholunate interosseus ligament (SLIL) injury patients with SLAC to SLIL injury patients treated with 3-LT, and then to patients who received proximal row carpectomy (PRC), as a control group. METHOD: We included all patients with a traumatic SLIL injury and associated SLAC components treated with 3-LT and completed Patient Reported Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) questionnaires preoperative and at 12 months follow-up. First, we compared matched patients with SLIL injury and SLIL injury with SLAC, stage 1-3, who received 3-LT. Second, we compared patients who received 3-LT, with patients who underwent PRC, while having SLAC stage 2-3. RESULTS: We compared 51 patients with SLAC to 95 with SLIL injury who had a 3-LT procedure, and 10 3-LT patients were compared to 18 patients undergoing PRC, given SLAC 2-3. In both analyses, the PRWE scores had significantly improved in all groups, however no significant differences in PRWE were found between 3-LT in SLIL injury and SLIL injury with SLAC, 6.9 points (95% CI [-14.92; 1.22], p = 0.096) and between 3-LT and PRC, given SLAC stage 2-3, 15.1 points (not enough power). CONCLUSION: There is no difference in PRWE between matched SLIL injury patients with or without degenerative changes treated with a 3-LT. Therefore, the 3-LT procedure seems to be a viable treatment option for patients with early-stage SLAC wrist. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III.

Long-Term Outcomes of Nonsurgical Treatment of Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Although nonsurgical treatment of thumb carpometacarpal (CMC-1) osteoarthritis (OA) provides short-term improvement, the durability of these effects beyond 1 year is unknown. In this study, we investigated patient-reported pain and limitations in activities of daily living (ADL) at >5 years following nonsurgical treatment (i.e., exercise therapy and use of an orthosis) for CMC-1 OA. We hypothesized that pain and limitations in ADL would not worsen after 12 months. Secondary outcomes were satisfaction with treatment results and health-related quality of life at >5 years of follow-up and the rate of conversion to surgery. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective cohort study using 2 overlapping samples. The change in the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) subscales of pain and ADL between 12 months and >5 years was the primary outcome as measured in the first sample (n = 170), which consisted of patients who did not undergo conversion to surgery. Additional measurement time points included baseline and 3 months. We evaluated conversion to surgery in a second sample, which included all patients who responded to the invitation for this follow-up study (n = 217). RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 6.6 years (range, 5.1 to 8.7 years), the score on the MHQ pain subscale did not differ significantly from that at 12 months. The score on the MHQ ADL improved by 4.4 points (95% confidence interval [CI],1.5 to 7.2) compared with 12 months, but this was not clinically relevant. At >5 years, 5% of the patients rated their satisfaction as "poor," 14% as "moderate," 26% as "fair," 39% as "good," and 16% as "excellent." The median EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) index score was 0.852 (range, 0.135 to 1). The rate of conversion to surgery was 22% (95% CI,16.4% to 27.7%) at a median follow-up of 7 years (range, 5.5 to 9.0 years). CONCLUSIONS: We found positive outcomes at >5 years of follow-up for nonsurgical treatment of CMC-1 OA, with no worsening of pain or of limitations in ADL after 12 months. Our findings support nonsurgical treatment as the first treatment choice and suggest that treatment effects are sustainable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Tailoring and evaluating treatment with the Patient-Specific Needs Evaluation: A Patient-Centered Approach.

BACKGROUND: No patient-reported instrument assesses patient-specific information needs, treatment goals, and Personal Meaningful Gain (PMG, a novel construct evaluating individualized, clinically relevant improvement). This study reports the development of the Patient-Specific Needs Evaluation (PSN) and examines its discriminative validity (i.e., its ability to distinguish satisfied from dissatisfied patients) and test-retest reliability in patients with hand or wrist conditions. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to develop and validate the PSN, following COSMIN guidelines, including pilot testing, a survey (pilot: n=223, final PSN: n=275), cognitive debriefing (n=16), expert input, and validation. Discriminative validity was assessed by comparing the satisfaction level of patients who did or did not achieve their PMG (n=1,985) and test-retest reliability using absolute agreement, Cohen's kappa, and ICCs (n=102). We used a sample of 2,860 patients to describe responses to the final PSN. RESULTS: The PSN has only five questions (completion time ±3 minutes) and is freely accessible online. The items and response options were considered understandable by 90-92% and complete by 84-89% of the end-users. The PSN had excellent discriminative validity (Cramer's V: 0.48, p<0.001) and moderate to high test-retest reliability (Kappa: 0.46-0.68, ICCs: 0.53-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The PSN is a freely available patient-centered decision-support tool that helps clinicians tailor their consultations to the patient's individual needs and goals. It contains the PMG, a novel construct evaluating individualized, clinically relevant treatment outcomes. The PSN may function as a conversation starter, facilitate expectation management, and aid shared decision-making. The PSN is implementation-ready and can be readily adapted to other patient populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Changes in illness perception, pain catastrophizing, and psychological distress following hand surgeon consultation: A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Baseline mindset factors are important factors that influence treatment decisions and outcomes. Theoretically, improving the mindset prior to treatment may improve treatment decisions and outcomes. This prospective cohort study evaluated changes in patients' mindset following hand surgeon consultation. Additionally, we assessed if the change in illness perception differed between surgical and nonsurgical patients. METHODS: The primary outcome was illness perception, measured using the total score of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ, range 0-80). Secondary outcomes were the B-IPQ subscales, pain catastrophizing (measured using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)), and psychological distress (measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-4). RESULTS: A total of 276 patients with various hand and wrist conditions completed the mindset questionnaires before and after hand surgeon consultation (median time interval: 15 days). The B-IPQ total score improved from 39.7 (±10.6) before to 35.8 (±11.3) after consultation (p < 0.0001, Cohen's d = 0.36); scores also improved for the B-IPQ subscales Coherence, Concern, Emotional Response, Timeline, Treatment Control, and Identity and the PCS. There were no changes in the other outcomes. Surgical patients improved on the B-IPQ subscales Treatment Control and Timeline, while nonsurgical patients did not. CONCLUSIONS: Illness perception and pain catastrophizing improved following hand surgeon consultation, suggesting that clinicians may actively influence the patients' mindset during consultations, and that they may try to enhance this effect to improve outcomes. Furthermore, surgical patients improved more in illness perceptions, indicating that nonsurgical patients may benefit from a more targeted strategy for changing mindset.

Associations between positive treatment outcome expectations, illness understanding, and outcomes: a cohort study on non-operative treatment of first carpometacarpal osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: More positive outcome expectations and illness perceptions are associated with better outcomes for patients with several osteoarthritic orthopedic conditions. However, it is unknown whether these factors also influence outcomes of non-operative treatment for first carpometacarpal osteoarthritis (CMC-1 OA). Therefore, we assess the role of pre-treatment outcome expectations and illness perceptions in reports of pain and hand function 3 months after non-operative treatment for CMC-1 OA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cohort study with 219 patients treated non-operatively for CMC-1 OA between September 2017 and October 2018. Patients were included in the study if they completed measures of pain and hand function, illness perceptions (scale: 0-10), and expectations (scale: 3-27) as part of routine outcome measurements. Pain and hand function were measured before treatment and 3 months after starting treatment using the Dutch version of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to assess the influence of outcome expectations and illness perceptions on pain and hand function. RESULTS: Both positive outcome expectations (B = 0.64; 95% CI [0.1-1.2]) and a better illness understanding (an illness perception subdomain; B = 1.53; 95% CI [0.2-2.9]) at baseline were associated with less pain at 3 months. For hand function, similar estimates were found. CONCLUSIONS: We found that positive outcome expectations and a better illness understanding, were associated with a better outcome of non-operative treatment for CMC-1 OA.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONNon-operative treatment can often be successful for patients with arthritis of the thumb.Outcome expectations and illness perceptions are associated with pain and hand function 3 months after non-operative treatment for thumb base osteoarthritis.Improving the outcome expectations and illness perceptions of patients through better education could improve the outcome of non-operative treatment.

Surgical management of primary thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

The aim of this article is to provide an updated systematic review on the 8 most commonly used surgical procedures to treat trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. A thorough literature search was performed using predetermined criteria. A total of 35 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Nine of these 35 articles were not included in previous systematic reviews. Systematic evaluation demonstrated the following: (1) there is no evidence that trapeziectomy or trapeziectomy with tendon interposition is superior to any of the other techniques. However, when interposition is performed, autologous tissue interposition seems to be preferable. (2) Trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction or trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) is not superior to any of the other techniques. However, follow-up in the studies with a higher level of evidence was relatively short (12 mo); therefore, long-term benefits could not be assessed. In addition, trapeziectomy with LRTI seems associated with a higher complication rate. (3) Because the studies on thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) arthrodesis were of less methodological quality and had inconsistent outcomes, we are not able to conclude whether CMC arthrodesis is superior to any other technique. Therefore, high-level randomized trials comparing CMC arthrodesis with other procedures are needed. Nevertheless, findings in the newly included studies did show that nonunion rates in the literature are on average 8% to 21% and, complications and repeat surgeries are more frequent following CMC arthrodesis. (4) A study on joint replacement showed that total joint prosthesis might have better short-term results compared to trapeziectomy with LRTI. However, high-level randomized trials comparing total joint prosthesis with other procedures are needed. In addition, there is no evidence that the Artelon spacer is superior to trapeziectomy with LRTI. We conclude that, at this time, no surgical procedure is proven to be superior to another. However, based on good results of CMC arthrodesis and total joint prostheses, we postulate that there could be differences between the various surgical procedures. Therefore randomized clinical trials of CMC arthrodesis and total joint prostheses compared to trapeziectomy with long follow-up (>1 y) are warranted.