Development of the Screening Tool for Everyday Mobility and Symptoms (STEMS) for skeletal dysplasia

Background: Skeletal dysplasia are genetic disorders of cartilage and bone, characterized by impairments commonly resulting in short stature, altered movement biomechanics, pain, fatigue and reduced functional performance. While current tools quantify functional mobility performance, they have not been standardly used in this population group and do not capture patient-reported symptoms such as pain or fatigue. This study evaluated a new tool, the Screening Tool for Everyday Mobility and Symptoms (STEMS), designed to accurately and objectively assess functional mobility and associated symptomology for individuals with skeletal dysplasia. Methods: Individuals aged 5-75 years with a skeletal dysplasia completed the STEMS, the Functional Mobility Scale (FMS) and Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT). The correlation among the STEMS, use of mobility aides, FMS and 6MWT normalised for leg length was calculated. One-way analysis of variance compared the STEMS symptomatology to normalised 6MWT distance. Results: One hundred and fifty individuals with skeletal dysplasia (76 achondroplasia, 42 osteogenesis imperfecta, 32 other; 74= 18 years) participated. Almost two thirds of the group reported pain and/or fatigue when mobilising at home, at work or school and within the community, but only twenty percent recorded use of a mobility device. The STEMS setting category demonstrated highly significant correlations with the corresponding FMS category (r=-0.983 to -0.0994, all p<0.001), and a low significant correlation with the normalised 6MWT distance (r=-0.323 to -0.394, all p<0.001). A decreased normalised 6MWT distance was recorded for individuals who reported symptoms of pain and/or fatigue when mobilising at home or at work/school (all p <= 0.004). Those who reported pain only when mobilising in the community had a normal 6MWT distance (p=0.43-0.46). Conclusions: The Screening Tool for Everyday Mobility and Symptoms (STEMS) is a useful new tool to identify and record mobility aide use and associated self-reported symptoms across three environmental settings for adults and children with skeletal dysplasia. The STEMS may assist clinicians to monitor individuals for changes in functional mobility and symptoms over time, identify individuals who are functioning poorly compared to peers and need further assessment, and to measure effectiveness of treatment interventions in both clinical and research settings

The differential diagnosis of children with joint hypermobility: a review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In this study we aimed to identify and review publications relating to the diagnosis of joint hypermobility and instability and develop an evidence based approach to the diagnosis of children presenting with joint hypermobility and related symptoms.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched Medline for papers with an emphasis on the diagnosis of joint hypermobility, including Heritable Disorders of Connective Tissue (HDCT).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>3330 papers were identified: 1534 pertained to instability of a particular joint; 1666 related to the diagnosis of Ehlers Danlos syndromes and 330 related to joint hypermobility.</p> <p>There are inconsistencies in the literature on joint hypermobility and how it relates to and overlaps with milder forms of HDCT. There is no reliable method of differentiating between Joint Hypermobility Syndrome, familial articular hypermobility and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hypermobile type), suggesting these three disorders may be different manifestations of the same spectrum of disorders. We describe our approach to children presenting with joint hypermobility and the published evidence and expert opinion on which this is based.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is value in identifying both the underlying genetic cause of joint hypermobility in an individual child and those hypermobile children who have symptoms such as pain and fatigue and might benefit from multidisciplinary rehabilitation management.</p> <p>Every effort should be made to diagnose the underlying disorder responsible for joint hypermobility which may only become apparent over time. We recommend that the term "Joint Hypermobility Syndrome" is used for children with symptomatic joint hypermobility resulting from any underlying HDCT and that these children are best described using <b>both </b>the term Joint Hypermobility Syndrome <b>and </b>their HDCT diagnosis.</p

Pediatric joint hypermobility: a diagnostic framework and narrative review

Abstract Background Hypermobile Ehlers–Danlos syndrome (hEDS) and hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD) are debilitating conditions. Diagnosis is currently clinical in the absence of biomarkers, and criteria developed for adults are difficult to use in children and biologically immature adolescents. Generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) is a prerequisite for hEDS and generalized HSD. Current literature identifies a large proportion of children as hypermobile using a Beighton score ≥ 4 or 5/9, the cut off for GJH in adults. Other phenotypic features from the 2017 hEDS criteria can arise over time. Finally, many comorbidities described in hEDS/HSD are also seen in the general pediatric and adolescent population. Therefore, pediatric specific criteria are needed. The Paediatric Working Group of the International Consortium on EDS and HSD has developed a pediatric diagnostic framework presented here. The work was informed by a review of the published evidence. Observations The framework has 4 components, GJH, skin and tissue abnormalities, musculoskeletal complications, and core comorbidities. A Beighton score of ≥ 6/9 best identifies children with GJH at 2 standard deviations above average, based on published general population data. Skin and soft tissue changes include soft skin, stretchy skin, atrophic scars, stretch marks, piezogenic papules, and recurrent hernias. Two symptomatic groups were agreed: musculoskeletal and systemic. Emerging comorbid relationships are discussed. The framework generates 8 subgroups, 4 pediatric GJH, and 4 pediatric generalized hypermobility spectrum disorders. hEDS is reserved for biologically mature adolescents who meet the 2017 criteria, which also covers even rarer types of Ehlers–Danlos syndrome at any age. Conclusions This framework allows hypermobile children to be categorized into a group describing their phenotypic and symptomatic presentation. It clarifies the recommendation that comorbidities should be defined using their current internationally accepted frameworks. This provides a foundation for improving clinical care and research quality in this population