Carpal tunnel syndrome and the use of computer mouse and keyboard: A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This review examines evidence for an association between computer work and carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review of studies of computer work and CTS was performed. Supplementary, longitudinal studies of low force, repetitive work and CTS, and studies of possible pathophysiological mechanisms were evaluated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eight epidemiological studies of the association between computer work and CTS were identified. All eight studies had one or more limitation including imprecise exposure and outcome assessment, low statistical power or potentially serious biases. In three of the studies an exposure-response association was observed but because of possible misclassification no firm conclusions could be drawn. Three of the studies found risks below 1. Also longitudinal studies of repetitive low-force non-computer work (n = 3) were reviewed but these studies did not add evidence to an association. Measurements of carpal tunnel pressure (CTP) under conditions typically observed among computer users showed pressure values below levels considered harmful. However, during actual mouse use one study showed an increase of CTP to potentially harmful levels. The long term effects of prolonged or repeatedly increased pressures at these levels are not known, however.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is insufficient epidemiological evidence that computer work causes CTS.</p

Power grip, pinch grip, manual muscle testing or thenar atrophy - which should be assessed as a motor outcome after carpal tunnel decompression? A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Objective assessment of motor function is frequently used to evaluate outcome after surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However a range of outcome measures are used and there appears to be no consensus on which measure of motor function effectively captures change. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the methods used to assess motor function in randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions for CTS. A secondary aim was to evaluate which instruments reflect clinical change and are psychometrically robust.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The bibliographic databases Medline, AMED and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions for CTS. Data on instruments used, methods of assessment and results of tests of motor function was extracted by two independent reviewers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-two studies were retrieved which included performance based assessments of motor function. Nineteen studies assessed power grip dynamometry, fourteen studies used both power and pinch grip dynamometry, eight used manual muscle testing and five assessed the presence or absence of thenar atrophy. Several studies used multiple tests of motor function. Two studies included both power and pinch strength and reported descriptive statistics enabling calculation of effect sizes to compare the relative responsiveness of grip and pinch strength within study samples. The study findings suggest that tip pinch is more responsive than lateral pinch or power grip up to 12 weeks following surgery for CTS.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although used most frequently and known to be reliable, power and key pinch dynamometry are not the most valid or responsive tools for assessing motor outcome up to 12 weeks following surgery for CTS. Tip pinch dynamometry more specifically targets the thenar musculature and appears to be more responsive. Manual muscle testing, which in theory is most specific to the thenar musculature, may be more sensitive if assessed using a hand held dynamometer – the Rotterdam Intrinsic Handheld Myometer. However further research is needed to evaluate its reliability and responsiveness and establish the most efficient and psychometrically robust method of evaluating motor function following surgery for CTS.</p

The Jumonji-C oxygenase JMJD7 catalyzes (3S)-lysyl hydroxylation of TRAFAC GTPases

Biochemical, structural and cellular studies reveal Jumonji-C (JmjC) domain-containing 7 (JMJD7) to be a 2-oxoglutarate (2OG)-dependent oxygenase that catalyzes (3S)-lysyl hydroxylation. Crystallographic analyses reveal JMJD7 to be more closely related to the JmjC hydroxylases than to the JmjC demethylases. Biophysical and mutation studies show that JMJD7 has a unique dimerization mode, with interactions between monomers involving both N- and C-terminal regions and disulfide bond formation. A proteomic approach identifies two related members of the translation factor (TRAFAC) family of GTPases, developmentally regulated GTP-binding proteins 1 and 2 (DRG1/2), as activity-dependent JMJD7 interactors. Mass spectrometric analyses demonstrate that JMJD7 catalyzes Fe(ii)- and 2OG-dependent hydroxylation of a highly conserved lysine residue in DRG1/2; amino-acid analyses reveal that JMJD7 catalyzes (3S)-lysyl hydroxylation. The functional assignment of JMJD7 will enable future studies to define the role of DRG hydroxylation in cell growth and disease.Fil: Markolovic, Suzana. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Zhuang, Qinqin. University Of Birmingham; Reino UnidoFil: Wilkins, Sarah E.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Eaton, Charlotte D.. University Of Birmingham; Reino UnidoFil: Abboud, Martine I.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Katz, Maximiliano Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: McNeil, Helen E.. University Of Birmingham; Reino UnidoFil: Leśniak, Robert K.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Hall, Charlotte. University Of Birmingham; Reino UnidoFil: Struwe, Weston B.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Konietzny, Rebecca. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Davis, Simon. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Yang, Ming. The Francis Crick Institute; Reino Unido. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Ge, Wei. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Benesch, Justin L. P.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Kessler, Benedikt M.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Ratcliffe, Peter J.. University of Oxford; Reino Unido. The Francis Crick Institute; Reino UnidoFil: Cockman, Matthew E.. The Francis Crick Institute; Reino Unido. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Fischer, Roman. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Wappner, Pablo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Chowdhury, Rasheduzzaman. University of Stanford; Estados Unidos. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Coleman, Mathew L.. University Of Birmingham; Reino UnidoFil: Schofield, Christopher J.. University of Oxford; Reino Unid