Unique characteristics of patients who choose an intensive lifestyle medicine program to address chronic musculoskeletal pain.

INTRODUCTION: Factors that motivate musculoskeletal patients to pursue an intensive, lifestyle medicine-based approach to care are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether, compared to patients seeking musculoskeletal care through traditional pathways, patients who choose an intensive lifestyle medicine program for musculoskeletal pain endorse greater physical dysfunction, worse psychological health, and/or more biopsychosocial comorbidities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of existing medical records from 2018 to 2021. SETTING: Orthopedic department of one academic medical center. PATIENTS: Fifty consecutive patients who enrolled in an intensive lifestyle medicine program to address a musculoskeletal condition. Comparison groups were the following: (1) 100 patients who presented for standard nonoperative musculoskeletal care, and (2) 100 patients who presented for operative evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon and qualified for joint arthroplasty. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were age-adjusted, between-group differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical and psychological health measures. Secondary outcomes were between-group differences in sociodemographic and medical history characteristics. RESULTS: Patients who enrolled in the intensive lifestyle medicine program were more racially diverse (non-White race: lifestyle cohort 34% vs. comparison cohorts 16%-18%, p ≤ .029) and had a higher prevalence of obesity and diabetes than both comparison groups (mean body mass index: lifestyle cohort 37.6 kg/m2 vs. comparison cohorts 29.3-32.0, p < .001; diabetes prevalence: lifestyle cohort 32% vs. comparison cohorts 12%-16%, p ≤ .024). Compared to standard nonoperative patients, there were no clear between-group differences in PROMIS physical or psychological health scores. Compared to standard operative evaluation patients, patients in the lifestyle program reported worse anxiety but less pain interference (PROMIS Anxiety: B = 3.8 points [95% confidence interval, 0.1 to 7.4], p = .041; Pain interference: B = -3.6 [-6.0 to -1.2], p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to musculoskeletal patients who sought care through traditional pathways, patients who chose an intensive lifestyle medicine pathway had a higher prevalence of metabolic comorbidities, but there was substantial overlap in patients' physical, psychological, and sociodemographic characteristics.

Interpretation of PROMIS Depression and Anxiety Measures Compared with DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria in Musculoskeletal Patients.

There is growing awareness among orthopaedic clinicians that mental health directly impacts clinical musculoskeletal outcomes. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is increasingly used for mental health screening in this context, but proper interpretation of patient scores remains unclear. The purpose of the present study was to compare musculoskeletal patients' PROMIS Depression and Anxiety scores with a board-certified clinical psychologist's assessment of their depression and/or anxiety diagnoses, as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria. Methods: In this cross-sectional analysis, existing medical records were reviewed for 50 patients who presented to an interdisciplinary program within a tertiary care orthopaedic department for the treatment of ≥1 musculoskeletal condition. All patients completed PROMIS Depression and Anxiety measures and were evaluated by a board-certified clinical psychologist. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of PROMIS Depression and Anxiety scores as compared with the psychologist's diagnosis of a DSM-5 depressive or anxiety disorder. Results: Twenty-eight patients (56%) were diagnosed by the psychologist with a DSM-5 depressive disorder, and 15 (30%) were diagnosed with a DSM-5 anxiety disorder. The ROC analysis for PROMIS Depression had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.82. The optimal score cutoff to predict a diagnosis of a DSM-5 depressive disorder was ≥53 (sensitivity, 79% [95% CI, 63% to 94%]; specificity, 86% [72% to 100%]; positive predictive value [PPV], 88% [75% to 100%]; negative predictive value [NPV], 76% [59% to 93%]). The ROC analysis for PROMIS Anxiety had an AUC of 0.67. The optimal score cutoff to predict a diagnosis of a DSM-5 anxiety disorder was ≥59 (sensitivity, 60% [95% CI, 35% to 85%]; specificity, 74% [60% to 89%]; PPV, 50% [27% to 73%]; and NPV, 81% [68% to 95%]). Conclusions: Modestly elevated PROMIS Depression scores were suggestive of the presence of a DSM-5 depressive disorder, whereas elevations in PROMIS Anxiety scores seemed to have less association with DSM-5 anxiety disorders. Nevertheless, neither PROMIS measure demonstrated adequate discriminant ability to definitively identify patients who met DSM-5 criteria. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Digital Mental Health Intervention Plus Usual Care Compared With Usual Care Only and Usual Care Plus In-Person Psychological Counseling for Orthopedic Patients With Symptoms of Depression or Anxiety: Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety frequently coexist with chronic musculoskeletal pain and can negatively impact patients' responses to standard orthopedic treatments. Nevertheless, mental health is not routinely addressed in the orthopedic care setting. If effective, a digital mental health intervention may be a feasible and scalable method of addressing mental health in an orthopedic setting. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare 2-month changes in mental and physical health between orthopedic patients who received a digital mental health intervention in addition to usual orthopedic care, those who received usual orthopedic care only (without a specific mental health intervention), and those who received in-person care with a psychologist as part of their orthopedic treatment plan. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective cohort study involving ancillary analysis of a pilot feasibility study, 2-month self-reported health changes were compared between a cohort of orthopedic patients who received access to a digital mental health intervention (Wysa) and 2 convenience sample comparison cohorts (patients who received usual orthopedic care without a specific mental health intervention and patients who received in-person care with a psychologist as part of their orthopedic treatment plan). All patients were 18 years or older and reported elevated symptoms of depression or anxiety at an orthopedic clinic visit (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Depression or Anxiety score ≥55). The digital intervention was a multi-component mobile app that used chatbot technology and text-based access to human counselors to provide cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness training, and sleep tools, among other features, with an emphasis on behavioral activation and pain acceptance. Outcomes of interest were between-cohort differences in the 2-month longitudinal changes in PROMIS Depression and Anxiety scores (primary outcomes) and PROMIS Pain Interference and Physical Function scores (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: Among 153 patients (mean age 55, SD 15 years; 128 [83.7%] female; 51 patients per cohort), patients who received the digital mental health intervention showed clinically meaningful improvements at the 2-month follow-up for all PROMIS measures (mean longitudinal improvement 2.8-3.7 points; P≤.02). After controlling for age and BMI, the improvements in PROMIS Depression, Pain Interference, and Physical Function were meaningfully greater than longitudinal changes shown by patients who received usual orthopedic care (mean between-group difference 2.6-4.8 points; P≤.04). Improvements in PROMIS Physical Function were also meaningfully greater than longitudinal changes shown by patients who received in-person psychological counseling (mean between-group difference 2.4 points; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received a digital mental health intervention as part of orthopedic care reported greater 2-month mean improvements in depression, pain interference, and physical function than patients who received usual orthopedic care. They also reported a greater mean improvement in physical function and comparable improvements in depression, anxiety, and pain interference compared with orthopedic patients who received in-person psychological counseling.

A Digital Mental Health Intervention in an Orthopedic Setting for Patients With Symptoms of Depression and/or Anxiety: Feasibility Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of depression and anxiety commonly coexist with chronic musculoskeletal pain, and when this occurs, standard orthopedic treatment is less effective. However, mental health intervention is not yet a routine part of standard orthopedic treatment, in part because of access-related barriers. Digital mental health intervention is a potential scalable resource that could be feasibly incorporated into orthopedic care. OBJECTIVE: This study's primary purpose was to assess the feasibility of introducing a digital mental health intervention (Wysa) in an outpatient orthopedic setting to patients with coexisting symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. The secondary purpose was to perform a preliminary effectiveness analysis of the intervention. METHODS: In this single-arm, prospective cohort study, participants included adult patients (18 years and older) who presented to a nonsurgical orthopedic specialist at a single tertiary care academic center for evaluation of a musculoskeletal condition and who self-reported symptoms of depression and/or anxiety (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Depression and/or Anxiety score ≥55). Face-to-face enrollment was performed by a research coordinator immediately after the participant's encounter with an orthopedic clinician. Participants were provided 2 months of access to a mobile app called Wysa, which is an established, multicomponent digital mental health intervention that uses chatbot technology and text-based access to human counselors to deliver cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness training, and sleep tools, among other features. For this study, Wysa access also included novel, behavioral activation-based features specifically developed for users with chronic pain. Primary feasibility outcomes included the study recruitment rate, retention rate, and engagement rate with Wysa (defined as engagement with a therapeutic Wysa tool at least once during the study period). Secondary effectiveness outcomes were between-group differences in mean longitudinal PROMIS mental and physical health score changes at 2-month follow-up between high and low Wysa users, defined by a median split. RESULTS: The recruitment rate was 29.3% (61/208), retention rate was 84% (51/61), and engagement rate was 72% (44/61). Compared to low users, high users reported greater improvement in PROMIS Anxiety scores (between-group difference -4.2 points, 95% CI -8.1 to -0.2; P=.04) at the 2-month follow-up. Between-group differences in PROMIS Depression (-3.2 points, 95% CI -7.5 to 1.2; P=.15) and Pain Interference scores (-2.3 points, 95% CI -6.3 to 1.7; P=.26) favored high users but did not meet statistical significance. Improvements in PROMIS Physical Function scores were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of a digital mental health intervention within the context of orthopedic care is feasible and has the potential to improve mental health and pain-related impairment to a clinically meaningful degree. Participants' engagement rates exceeded industry standards, and additional opportunities to improve recruitment and retention were identified. Further pilot study followed by a definitive, randomized controlled trial is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04640090; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04640090.

Short-term Clinical Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy Versus Physical Therapy in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Both physical therapy (PT) and surgery are effective in treating femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), but their relative efficacy has not been well established until recently. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the early clinical outcomes of these treatments have been published, with contradictory results. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of RCTs that compared early patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of hip arthroscopy versus PT in patients with symptomatic FAI. The hypothesis was that surgical treatment of FAI leads to better short-term outcomes than PT. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: In March 2019, a systematic review was performed to identify RCTs comparing hip arthroscopy and PT in patients with symptomatic FAI. A total of 819 studies were found among 6 databases; of these, 3 RCTs met eligibility (Griffin et al, 2018; Mansell et al, 2018; and Palmer et al, 2019). All 3 RCTs reported international Hip Outcome Tool--33 (iHOT-33) scores, and 2 reported Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and HOS-Sport results. In a random-effects meta-analysis, between-group differences in postintervention scores were assessed according to intention-to-treat and as-treated approaches. Quality was assessed with CONSORT, CERT, TiDieR, and the Cochrane Collaboration tool. RESULTS: The 3 RCTs included 650 patients with FAI; the mean follow-up ranged from 8 to 24 months. All studies reported PRO improvement from baseline to follow-up for both PT and surgery. The quality of the Griffin and Palmer studies was good, with minimal bias. In the Mansell study, a 70% crossover rate from PT to surgery increased the risk of bias. The meta-analysis demonstrated improved iHOT-33 outcomes with surgery compared with PT for intention-to-treat (mean difference [MD], 11.3; P = .046) and as-treated (MD, 12.6; P = .007) analyses. The as-treated meta-analysis of HOS-ADL scores favored surgery (MD, 12.0; P < .001), whereas the intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated no significant difference between groups for HOS-ADL (MD, 3.9; P = .571). CONCLUSION: In patients with FAI, the combined results of 3 RCTs demonstrated superior short-term outcomes for surgery versus PT. However, PT did result in improved outcomes and did not appear to compromise the surgical outcomes of patients for whom therapy failed and who progressed to surgery.

Clinical presentation of patients with symptomatic anterior hip impingement.

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is considered a cause of labrochondral disease and secondary osteoarthritis. Nevertheless, the clinical syndrome associated with FAI is not fully characterized. We determined the clinical history, functional status, activity status, and physical examination findings that characterize FAI. We prospectively evaluated 51 patients (52 hips) with symptomatic FAI. Evaluation of the clinical history, physical exam, and previous treatments was performed. Patients completed demographic and validated hip questionnaires (Baecke et al., SF-12, Modified Harris hip, and UCLA activity score). The average patient age was 35 years and 57% were male. Symptom onset was commonly insidious (65%) and activity-related. Pain occurred predominantly in the groin (83%). The mean time from symptom onset to definitive diagnosis was 3.1 years. Patients were evaluated by an average 4.2 healthcare providers prior to diagnosis and inaccurate diagnoses were common. Thirteen percent had unsuccessful surgery at another anatomic site. On exam, 88% of the hips were painful with the anterior impingement test. Hip flexion and internal rotation in flexion were limited to an average 97 degrees and 9 degrees, respectively. The patients were relatively active, yet demonstrated restrictions of function and overall health. These data may facilitate diagnosis of this disorder.

Gender-Dependent Differences in Hip Range of Motion and Impingement Testing in Asymptomatic College Freshman Athletes.

BACKGROUND: Athletic activity is a proposed factor in the development and progression of intra-articular hip pathology. Early diagnosis and preventive treatments in "at-risk" athletes are needed. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to report hip range of motion (ROM) and prevalence of positive impingement testing in asymptomatic college freshman athletes. Our secondary objective was to determine whether an association exists between hip ROM and a positive flexion-adduction-internal rotation (FADIR) test. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Collegiate athletic campus. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred thirty (299 male, 131 female) freshman athletes reporting no current or previous hip pain. METHODS: During the athletes' preseason medical screening, trained examiners performed a hip-specific exam to obtain data for hip ROM and impingement testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Bilateral passive ROM measures included hip flexion, and hip internal and external rotation with the hip flexed 0° and 90°. RESULTS: Mean age of male participants was 18.5 ± 0.8 and female participants was 18.3 ± 0.6 years (P = .003). Male participants demonstrated less hip ROM than female participants in flexion (115.8 ± 11.2° versus 122.0 ± 10.5°, P < .001), internal rotation in 90° flexion (26.9 ± 9.8° versus 34.7 ± 10.7°, P < .001) and 0° flexion (29.0 ± 9.8° versus 38.9 ± 10.1°, P < .001), and external rotation in 90° flexion (44.7 ± 10.9° versus 49.7 ± 10.4°, P < .001) but not for external rotation in 0° flexion (39.8 ± 11.1° versus 37.6 ± 11.5°, P = .06). Pain with FADIR test on the right and left hip were reported in 11.9% and 14.5% of athletes, respectively. Gender and a positive FADIR were not related (male 12.2%, female 15.3%, P = .36). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic college freshman athletes, male athletes generally demonstrated less hip ROM than female athletes. In addition, a positive FADIR was more prevalent than previously reported in healthy young adults. Preseason screenings that use these baseline data in conjunction with other examination findings may allow identification of athletes at future risk for hip pain and/or injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Predictors of first position turnout in collegiate dancers: the role of tibiofemoral external rotation and hip external rotation.

OBJECTIVE: Turnout is a dance position with known contributions from the hip, knee, and foot. A standardized method measuring total turnout has not been established. This study assessed the relationships between first position turnout (FPT) and measures of hip and tibiofemoral external rotation. DESIGN: This is a retrospective chart review of screening physical examination data of the knee and hip in collegiate female dancers. Measurements included FPT, active hip external rotation in sitting (HERS), active hip external rotation in prone, and passive tibiofemoral external rotation (TFR). Measurement comparisons were made using paired-samples t tests, Pearson product moment correlation coefficients, and hierarchical multiple regression analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-three female dancers (aged 18-21 yrs) participated. Correlations ranged from 0.01 (left HERS and left TFR) to 0.54 (left TFR to left FPT). Hip rotation in sitting explained a significant amount of variance in FPT (17% explained variance on the right and 19% variance on the left). Left TFR explained an additional 30% of the variance in left FPT beyond the variance explained by HERS. Right TFR did not explain a significant amount of the variance in right FPT beyond the variance explained by HERS. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that active HERS and TFR are important contributors to FPT and that the relative contribution of these motions differ between sides.

Reliability and agreement of hip range of motion and provocative physical examination tests in asymptomatic volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: To: (1) report passive hip range of motion (ROM) in asymptomatic young adults, (2) report the intratester and intertester reliability of hip ROM measurements among testers of multiple disciplines, and (3) report the results of provocative hip tests and tester agreement. DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. SETTING: Tertiary university. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight young adult volunteers without musculoskeletal symptoms, history of disorder, or surgery involving the lumbar spine or lower extremities were enrolled and completed the study. METHODS: Asymptomatic young adult volunteers completed questionnaires and were examined by 2 blinded examiners during a single session. The testers were physical therapists and physicians. Hip ROM and provocative tests were completed by both examiners on each hip. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Inter-rater and intrarater reliability for ROM and agreement for provocative tests were determined. RESULTS: Twenty-eight asymptomatic adults, mean age 31 years (range, 18-51 years), with a mean modified Harris Hip Score of 99.5 ± 1.5 and UCLA activity score of 8.8 ± 1.2 completed the study. Intrarater agreement was excellent for all hip ROM measurements, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from 0.76 to 0.97, with similar agreement if the examiner was a physical therapist or a physician. Excellent inter-rater reliability was found for hip flexion ICC 0.87 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.78-0.92), supine internal rotation ICC 0.75 (95% CI 0.60-0.84), and prone internal rotation ICC 0.79 (95% CI 0.66-0.87). The least reliable measurements were supine hip abduction (ICC 0.34) and supine external rotation (ICC 0.18). Agreement between examiners ranged from 96% to 100% for provocative hip tests, which included the hip impingement, resisted straight leg raise, Flexion Abduction External Rotation/Patrick, and log roll tests. CONCLUSIONS: Specific hip ROM measures show excellent inter-rater reliability, and provocative hip tests show good agreement among multiple examiners and medical disciplines. Further studies are needed to assess the use of these measurements and tests as a part of a hip screening examination to assess for young adults at risk for intra-articular hip disorders before the onset of degenerative changes.