Kinematic Investigation of Healthy, Arthritic, and Postsurgery Thumbs: Is the Metacarpophalangeal Joint the Gateway to Carpometacarpal Arthritis?

The thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) joint is one of the most likely joints to develop osteoarthritis (OA). If conservative treatments fail to alleviate symptoms, surgery may be pursued. Kinematic outcomes of CMC surgery techniques have been described, but current tools have limitations in capturing motion abilities. The goals of this study were (1) develop a new and robust set of kinematic outcome measures, and apply them to (2) a cohort of younger and older control individuals without CMC OA to determine age and sex-related changes, and (3) a cohort of participants with CMC OA before, 3 months, and 6 months after undergoing thumb ligament reconstruction with tendon interposition surgery to detect the impacts of surgery. 52 (26 males, 26 females) control and 18 (3 males, 15 females) surgical participants were tested. Kinematics were investigated using motion capture by mapping the three-dimensional motion space of the whole thumb, and two-dimensional motion boundaries of the metacarpal (MC) and proximal phalange (PP). Visual analog pain score was recorded. Older control participants had shifted regions of motion compared to younger participants (p ≤ 0.027), suggesting asymptomatic CMC wear. Control females had 31% more metacarpophalangeal (MCP) motion than control males (p = 0.013), which could alter loading paths through the CMC joint and increase OA risk. Pain at 6 months postsurgery was 72% less than presurgery (p < 0.001), but motion abilities were 20-28% less than presurgery (p ≤ 0.074) and 24-40% less than control participants (p ≤ 0.066). These techniques have the possibility of identifying presymptomatic motion changes, including those at the metacarpophalangeal joint in CMC OA progression.

The Female Thumb Carpometacarpal Joint: Motion and Force Changes Due to Arthritis and Surgical Intervention.

Thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) osteoarthritis (OA) has been one of the most common locations of hand OA. CMC OA disproportionately occurs in females over males. In severe cases, surgical intervention may be needed. However, to determine the effects of surgical treatment, normative, pre-, and postsurgery function must be understood. The goals of this work were to compare the thumb motion and force abilities of older healthy (OH) females without CMC OA to those of females with CMC OA and who received ligament reconstruction with tendon interposition (LRTI) surgery at time points presurgery, 3- and 6-months postsurgery. On average, CMC OA participants 3- and 6-months postsurgery showed 35.6% and 32.9% less overall metacarpal motion compared to presurgery, 31.9% and 29.1% less than OH, and exhibited altered motion. Metacarpal flexion/extension and abduction/adduction ranges were 51.9 deg and 43.4 deg for OH, 52.9 deg and 40.3 deg presurgery, 39.9 deg and 33.5 deg at 3-months, and 42.6 deg and 32.7 deg at 6-months postsurgery. On average, participants had increased force generation at 6-months postsurgery compared to presurgery, and 20% of participants returned to the level of OH females. These data sets highlight changes in thumb metacarpal movement and thumb force generation due to disease and surgical intervention. This work has the ability to support both surgeons and patients through improved outcome assessments as well as additional data to inform the decision process on intervention.

A review of the literature pertaining to the efficacy, safety, educational requirements, uses and usage of mechanical adjusting devices: Part 1 of 2.

Over the past decade, mechanical adjusting devices (MADs) were a major source of debate within the Chiropractors' Association of Saskatchewan (CAS). Since Saskatchewan was the only jurisdiction in North America to prohibit the use of MADs, the CAS established a committee in 2001 to review the literature on MADs. The committee evaluated the literature on the efficacy, safety, and uses of moving stylus instruments within chiropractic practice, and the educational requirements for chiropractic practice. Following the rating criteria for the evaluation of evidence, as outlined in the Clinical Guidelines for Chiropractic Practice in Canada (1994), the committee reviewed 55 articles - all of which pertained to the Activator. Of the 55 articles, 13 were eliminated from the final study. Of the 42 remaining articles, 6 were rated as class 1 evidence; 11 were rated as class 2 evidence and 25 were rated as class 3 evidence. In this article - the first in a series of two - the background and the methods utilized by the MAD committee's activities are described, as well as the results for the review of the literature on efficacy. Of the 21 articles related to efficacy, five were identified as Class 1 evidence; 4 were identified as Class 2 evidence; and 12 were identified as Class 3. Overall, the committee reached consensus that the MAD procedures using the Activator were as effective as manual (HVLA) procedures in producing clinical benefit and biological change. A minority report was also written, arguing that there was not enough evidence to support or refute the efficacy of MADs.

A review of the literature pertaining to the efficacy, safety, educational requirements, uses and usage of mechanical adjusting devices: Part 2 of 2.

Over the past decade, mechanical adjusting devices (MADs) were a major source of debate within the Chiropractors' Association of Saskatchewan (CAS). Since Saskatchewan was the only jurisdiction in North America to prohibit the use of MADs, the CAS established a committee in 2001 to review the literature on MADs. The committee evaluated the literature on the efficacy, safety, and uses of moving stylus instruments within chiropractic practice, and the educational requirements for chiropractic practice. Following the rating criteria for the evaluation of evidence, as outlined in the Clinical Guidelines for Chiropractic Practice in Canada (1994), the committee reviewed 55 articles - all of which pertained to the Activator. Of the 55 articles, 13 were eliminated from the final study. Of the 42 remaining articles, 6 were rated as class 1 evidence; 11 were rated as class 2 evidence and 25 were rated as class 3 evidence. In this article - the second in a series of two - we review the results of uses and usage, safety and educational requirements. Of the 30 articles designated under the category of usage, 3 were rated as Class 1 evidence; 9 studies were classified as Class 2 evidence and 18 were rated as Class 3 evidence. Overall the committee reached consensus that in clinical practice, there is broad application of these procedures. A minority report was written arguing that the reviewer was unable to reach a conclusion about the use of the Activator Instrument other than it is used as a clinical and research tool. Of the 16 studies that dealt either explicitly or implicitly with safety, 4 were Class 1 evidence; 3 were Class 2 evidence and 9 were Class 3 evidence. Overall the committee reached consensus that the evidence supports that the Activator instrument is safe and has no more relative risk than do manual HVLA procedures. A minority report was written arguing that there is no evidence either to support or refute the view that MAD is safe. Of the 5 studies that dealt with educational requirements, all were Class 3 evidence. Overall the committee reached consensus that there was no evidence in the literature with respect to educational requirements to form any conclusions. A minority report was written offering opinion that there is evidence with respect to educational requirements.