The association of clinical and structural knee osteoarthritis with physical activity in the middle-aged population: the NEO study

Objective: To investigate if knee osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with lower physical activity in the general middle-aged Dutch population, and if physical activity is associated with patient-reported outcomes in knee OA. Design: Clinical knee OA was defined in the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity population using the ACR criteria, and structural knee OA on MRI. We assessed knee pain and function with the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with the Short Form-36, and physical activity (in Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET) hours) with the Short Questionnaire to Assess Health-enhancing physical activity. We analysed the associations of knee OA with physical activity, and of physical activity with knee pain, function, and HRQoL in knee OA with linear regression adjusted for potential confounders. Results: Clinical knee OA was present in 14% of 6,212 participants, (mean age 56 years, mean BMI 27 kg/m(2), 55% women, 24% having any comorbidity) and structural knee OA in 12%. Clinical knee OA was associated with 9.60 (95% CI 3.70; 15.50) MET hours per week more physical activity, vs no clinical knee OA. Structural knee OA was associated with 3.97 (-7.82; 15.76) MET hours per week more physical activity, vs no structural knee OA. In clinical knee OA, physical activity was not associated with knee pain, function or HRQoL. Conclusions: Knee OA was not associated with lower physical activity, and in knee OA physical activity was not associated with patient-reported outcomes. Future research should indicate the optimal treatment advice regarding physical activity for individual knee OA patients. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Osteoarthritis Research Society International. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Cardiovascular Aspects of Radiolog

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%).(c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

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. Dutch Trial Register no.: NTR1307 https://thejns.org/doi/abs/10.3171/2021.8.SPINE21419Development and application of statistical models for medical scientific researc