Return to Work Following Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: A One-Year Prospective Cohort Study in Participants with Direct Referral from Hospital to Occupational Health Care Services.

PURPOSE: In a new Finnish Coordinated Return to Work (CRTW) model, patients are referred to occupational health care after hip or knee arthroplasty. This study evaluated the CRTW model's effect on return to work (RTW), activities used in occupational health care and in the workplace, and the patient- and work-related factors affecting early RTW. METHODS: 209 participants with occupational health care service underwent primary hip (THA) or total/unicondylar knee (KJA) arthroplasty and completed self-reported questionnaires after arthroplasty and at time of RTW. Factors affecting RTW, and the roles of occupational health care and the workplace in RTW were evaluated. Time to RTW was determined as days between the arthroplasty and RTW. RESULTS: Mean time to RTW was 69 days after THA and 87 days after KJA. For easing RTW, work arrangements were made for 56% of the participants. The most utilized adjustments of work were enabling remote work and arranging limitations in work tasks. Participants with earlier RTW had lower physical workload, higher professional status and motivation to work, less pre-arthroplasty sick leave, and more positive personal expectations about the time to RTW compared to participants with later RTW (p < 0.001 for all). The linear regression and dominance analyses showed participants' own expectations and pre-arthroplasty sick leave as the strongest factors affecting time to RTW. CONCLUSIONS: The CRTW model seems to shorten time to RTW after THA and KJA. Occupational health care and workplace play important roles in supporting RTW. Patients' own expectations should be noted when giving pre-arthroplasty information.

Clinical Characteristics of Irritant-Induced Occupational Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Work is a substantial contributing factor of adult-onset asthma. A subtype of occupational asthma (OA) is caused by irritant agents, but knowledge of the clinical outcomes of irritant-induced asthma (IIA) is incomplete. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the clinical picture of IIA differs from that of sensitizer-induced OA. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed acute and subacute IIA patients diagnosed in an occupational medicine clinic during 2004 to 2018. Sixty-nine patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and their characteristics were analyzed at the time of the diagnosis and 6 months later. The results were compared with those of 2 subgroups of sensitizer-induced OA: 69 high-molecular-weight (HMW) and 89 low-molecular-weight (LMW) agent-induced OA patients. RESULTS: Six months after the diagnosis, 30% of the patients with IIA needed daily short-acting ß-agonists (SABA), 68% were treated with Global Initiative for Asthma, 2020 report (GINA) step 4-5 medication, and 24% of the patients had asthma exacerbation after the first appointment. IIA depicted inferiority to LMW-induced OA in daily need for SABA (odds ratio [OR]: 3.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.38-10.46), treatment with GINA step 4-5 medication (OR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.08-4.57), and exacerbation (OR: 3.85, 95% CI: 1.35-11.04). IIA showed poorer results than HMW-induced OA in the latter 2 of these features (OR: 2.49, 95% CI: 1.07-5.79 and OR: 6.29, 95% CI: 1.53-25.83, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Six months after the OA diagnosis, a significant proportion of the patients with IIA remain symptomatic and the majority of these patients use asthma medications extensively suggesting uncontrolled asthma. The short-term outcomes of IIA appear poorer than that of sensitizer-induced OA.

Occupations and exposure events in acute and subacute irritant-induced asthma.

BACKGROUND: Exposures leading to irritant-induced asthma (IIA) are poorly documented. METHODS: We retrospectively screened the medical records of patients with IIA diagnosed in an occupational medicine clinic during 2000-2018. We classified the cases into acute (onset after single exposure) and subacute (onset after multiple exposures) IIA. We analysed in detail, occupations, causative agents and their air levels in the workplace, exposure events and the root causes of high exposure. RESULTS: Altogether 69 patients were diagnosed with IIA, 30 with acute and 39 with subacute IIA. The most common occupational groups were industrial operators (n=23, 33%), metal and machinery workers (n=16, 11%) and construction workers (n=12, 8%). Among industrial operators significantly more cases had subacute IIA than acute IIA (p=0.002). Forty cases (57%) were attributable to some type of corrosive acidic or alkaline chemical. Acute IIA followed accidents at work in different types of occupation, while subacute IIA was typical among industrial operators performing their normal work tasks under poor work hygiene conditions. The most common root cause was lack of information or false guidance in acute IIA (n=11, 36%) and neglect of workplace hygiene measures in subacute IIA (n=29, 74%). CONCLUSIONS: Accidents are the main causes of acute IIA, whereas subacute IIA can develop in normal work in risk trades with poor work hygiene. Airborne strong acids or bases seem to be the most important causative agents of acute and subacute IIA. The different risk profiles of acute and subacute IIA should be considered in the prevention and identification of the cases.