Validation of the SQUASH physical activity questionnaire using accelerometry: The NEO study.

Objective: To investigate the construct validity of the SQUASH (Short QUestionnaire to ASsess Health-enhancing physical activity). Design: This is a cross-sectional analysis using baseline measurements from middle-aged participants in the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. The SQUASH consists of questions on eleven physical activities investigating days per week, average duration per day and intensity, leading to a summed score in Metabolic Equivalent of Task hours (MET h) per week. To assess convergent validity, a Spearman's rank correlation between SQUASH and ActiHeart was calculated. To assess extreme group validity, three groups expected to differ in SQUASH total physical activity outcome were compared. For discriminative validity, a Spearman's rank correlation between SQUASH physical activity and participant height was investigated. Results: SQUASH data were available for 6550 participants (mean age 56 years, 44% men, mean BMI 26.3, 15% with knee OA, 13% with hand OA). Median physical activity (interquartile range) was 118 (76; 154) MET h/week according to SQUASH and 75 (58; 99) according to ActiHeart. Convergent validity was weak (rho â€‹= â€‹0.20). For all three extreme group comparisons, a statistically significant difference was present. Discriminative validity was present (rho â€‹= â€‹0.01). Compared with the reference quintile, those with a discrepancy SQUASH â€‹> â€‹ActiHeart and SQUASH â€‹< â€‹ActiHeart were relatively younger and more often male. Conclusions: The construct validity of the SQUASH seems sub-optimal. Physical activity reported by the SQUASH was generally higher than reported by ActiHeart. Whether the differences between SQUASH and ActiHeart are e.g. due to different underlying domains, limitations to our study, or reflect true differences needs further investigation.

Surgical denervation as a treatment strategy for pain in hand osteoarthritis: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical denervation has been proposed as a treatment for pain in hand osteoarthritis (OA). This review aimed to summarise the available evidence and to propose a research agenda. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed up to September 2022. Two investigators independently identified studies that reported on denervation for OA of the proximal interphalangeal, distal interphalangeal, metacarpophalangeal or carpometacarpal joints. Quality of studies was assessed and study characteristics, patient characteristics, details of the surgical technique and outcomes of the surgery were extracted. RESULTS: Of 169 references, 17 articles reporting on 384 denervations in 351 patients were selected. Sixteen case series reported positive outcomes with respect to pain, function and patient satisfaction. One non-randomised clinical trial reported no difference in outcome when comparing denervation of the first carpometacarpal (CMC I) joint to trapeziectomy. Adverse events were frequent, with sensory abnormalities occurring the most, followed by the need for revision surgery. All studies had significant risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Surgical denervation for pain in hand OA shows some promise, but the available evidence does not allow any conclusions of efficacy and higher-quality research is needed. Techniques should be harmonised and more data regarding how denervation compares to current usual care, other denervation methods or placebo in terms of outcomes and adverse events are needed.

The management of hand osteoarthritis: The rheumatologist's perspective.

Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is treated by several medical professionals. In this review the rheumatologist's perspective will be conveyed. The rheumatologist tasks are to diagnose hand OA, exclude other causes of patient's complaints, and provide treatment. The rheumatologist therefore has a distinctive and important role in hand OA treatment. Although no disease modifying treatment exists, there are multiple options for managing hand OA in rheumatology practice, with the goal of achieving symptom relief and optimizing hand function. These treatments can be non-pharmacological or pharmacological. In this review we will provide a summary of evidence-based management options based on existing guidelines. Furthermore, we will describe common practice among rheumatologists for hand OA management. In order to do so, we performed a literature review of studies addressing treatment modality usage for hand OA. The review comprised 25 studies, which were heterogeneous in terms of treatment modality usage. In addition, a detailed description of care usage by patients in a Rheumatology outpatient clinic is given, based on data of our Hand OSTeoArthritis in Secondary care primary hand OA cohort. The large majority of these patients used any form of hand OA treatment (83%). Non-pharmacological treatment was less frequently used (47%) than pharmacological treatment (77%).

Hand osteoarthritis is associated with limitations in paid and unpaid work participation and related societal costs: the HOSTAS cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Data on work participation impairment and related societal costs for patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA) are scarce. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the association of hand OA with work limitations and costs of productivity loss in paid and unpaid work. METHODS: We used data from the Hand Osteoarthritis in Secondary Care cohort, including patients with hand OA diagnosed by their treating rheumatologist. Using the validated Health and Labour Questionnaire, we assessed experienced unpaid and paid work restrictions, unpaid work replacement by others and inefficiency and absence during paid work related to hand OA over the last 2 weeks. Societal costs (€) per hour of paid and unpaid work were estimated using Dutch salary data in 2019. RESULTS: 381 patients were included (mean age 61 years, 84% women, 26% high education level, 55% having any comorbidity). Replacement of unpaid work by others due to hand OA was necessary for 171 out of 381 patients (45%). Paid work was reported by 181/381 patients (47%), of whom 13/181 (7%) reported absenteeism, 28/181 (15%) unproductive hours at work and 120/181 (66%) paid work restrictions due to hand OA.Total estimated work-related societal costs per patient with hand OA (381 patients) were €94 (95% CI 59 to 130) per 2 weeks (€2452, 95% CI 1528 to 3377 per year). CONCLUSIONS: Hand OA is associated with impairment in paid and unpaid work participation, which translates into substantial societal costs of lost productivity. These results highlight the importance of adequate hand OA treatment.

Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures: Should We Avoid Surgery during After-Hours?

Pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures occur frequently. Often, the decision has to be made whether to operate immediately, e.g., during after-hours, or to postpone until office hours. However, the effect of timing of surgery on radiological and clinical outcomes is unclear. This literature review with the PICO methodology found six relevant articles that compared the results of office-hours and after-hours surgery for pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures. The surgical outcomes of both groups in these studies were assessed. One of the articles found a significantly higher "poor fixation rate" in the after-hours group, compared with office hours. Another article found more malunions in the "night" subgroup vs. the "all groups but night" group. A third article found a higher risk of postoperative paresthesia in the "late night" subgroup vs. the "day" group. Lastly, one article reported increased consultant attendance and decreased operative time when postponing to office hours more often. No differences were reported for functional outcomes in any of the articles. Consequently, no strong risks or benefits from surgical treatment during office hours vs. after-hours were found. It appears safe to postpone surgery to office hours if circumstances are not optimal for acute surgery, and if there is no medical contraindication. However, research with a higher level-of-evidence is needed make more definite recommendations.

Interspinous process device versus conventional decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year results of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Interspinous process distraction devices (IPDs) can be implanted to treat patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication (INC) due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Short-term results provided evidence that the outcomes of IPD implantation were comparable to those of decompressive surgery, although the reoperation rate was higher in patients who received an IPD. This study focuses on the long-term results. METHODS: Patients with INC and spinal stenosis at 1 or 2 levels randomly underwent either decompression or IPD implantation. Patients were blinded to the allocated treatment. The primary outcome was the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) score at 5-year follow-up. Repeated measurement analysis was applied to compare outcomes over time. RESULTS: In total, 159 patients were included and randomly underwent treatment: 80 patients were randomly assigned to undergo IPD implantation, and 79 underwent spinal bony decompression. At 5 years, the success rates in terms of ZCQ score were similar (68% of patients who underwent IPD implantation had a successful recovery vs 56% of those who underwent bony decompression, p = 0.422). The reoperation rate at 2 years after surgery was substantial in the IPD group (29%), but no reoperations were performed thereafter. Long-term visual analog scale score for back pain was lower in the IPD group than the bony decompression group (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: IPD implantation is a more expensive alternative to decompressive surgery for INC but has comparable functional outcome during follow-up. The risk of reoperation due to absence of recovery is substantial in the first 2 years after IPD implantation, but if surgery is successful this positive effect remains throughout long-term follow-up. The IPD group had less back pain during long-term follow-up, but the clinical relevance of this finding is debatable.