Management of work-relevant upper limb disorders: a review

Background Upper limb disorders (ULDs) are clinically challenging and responsible for considerable work loss. There is a need to determine effective approaches for their management. Aim To determine evidence-based management strategies for work-relevant ULDs and explore whether a biopsychosocial approach is appropriate. Methods Literature review using a best evidence synthesis. Data from articles identified through systematic searching of electronic databases and citation tracking were extracted into evidence tables. The information was synthesized into high-level evidence statements, which were ordered into themes covering classification/diagnosis, epidemiology, associations/risks and management/treatment, focusing on return to work or work retention and taking account of distinctions between non-specific complaints and specific diagnoses. Results Neither biomedical treatment nor ergonomic workplace interventions alone offer an optimal solution; rather, multimodal interventions show considerable promise, particularly for occupational outcomes. Early return to work, or work retention, is an important goal for most cases and may be facilitated, where necessary, by transitional work arrangements. The emergent evidence indicates that successful management strategies require all the players to be onside and acting in a coordinated fashion; this requires engaging employers and workers to participate. Conclusions The biopsychosocial model applies: biological considerations should not be ignored, but psychosocial factors are more influential for occupational outcomes. Implementation of interventions that address the full range of psychosocial issues will require a cultural shift in the way the relationship between upper limb complaints and work is conceived and handled. Dissemination of evidence-based messages can contribute to the needed cultural shift

Shoulder Pain — Where Are We Now?

Purpose of Review Shoulder pain is common and costly. For the past century, diagnosis and management has been based upon presumed patho-anatomical abnormalities. With the evolution of imaging techniques and new insight about the causes of musculoskeletal pain, this review evaluates the evidence that a patho-anatomical approach remains justified. Recent Findings Imaging modalities have developed considerably but, so far, have only proven value in evaluating full thickness rotator cuff tears prior to surgery. Correlation between imaging findings and symptoms is otherwise poor, with limited evidence of the value and impact of imaging for decision-making. Much of shoulder pain is chronic and few people have single-site musculoskeletal pain. Pain studies suggest that chronic shoulder pain is associated with both central and peripheral pain sensitisation. Moreover, functional MRI points to an effect of cognitive affective pain processing rather than nociception. Few of the established therapies, medical or surgical, that treat the presumed patho-anatomical cause have been shown to have lasting benefit. Much of the evidence suggests that shoulder pain is more similar than different from mechanical low back pain. For most people with shoulder pain, the best approach might well be de-medicalisation, support to (self)manage pain, emphasis on retaining movement and identifying adverse beliefs and risk factors for disability and chronicity. Approaches like this are currently being evaluated and more research is desperately required

Work participation and risk factors for health-related job loss among older workers in the Health and Employment after Fifty (HEAF) study: Evidence from a 2-year follow-up period

Funding KWB The HEAF study is funded by grant awards from Versus Arthritis (formerly Arthritis Research UK) (19817 and 20665) and the Medical Research Council programme grant (MC_UU_12011/5); and the Economic and Social Research Council and Medical Research Council jointly (ES/L002663/1); the study is coordinated by the MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton. https://www.versusarthritis.org https://mrc.ukri.org/ https://esrc.ukri.org/ The funders did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Acknowledgments We wish to thank the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and the 24 general practices that supported data collection; also, the staff of the MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit who provided data entry and computing support (notably Vanessa Cox). Finally, we thank the HEAF participants for giving their time so generously to participate in the study.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Maintained physical activity and physiotherapy in the management of distal upper limb pain – a protocol for a randomised controlled trial (the arm pain trial)

<b>Background</b><p></p> Distal upper limb pain (pain affecting the elbow, forearm, wrist, or hand) can be non-specific, or can arise from specific musculoskeletal disorders. It is clinically important and costly, the best approach to clinical management is unclear. Physiotherapy is the standard treatment and, while awaiting treatment, advice is often given to rest and avoid strenuous activities, but there is no evidence base to support these strategies. This paper describes the protocol of a randomised controlled trial to determine, among patients awaiting physiotherapy for distal arm pain, (a) whether advice to remain active and maintain usual activities results in a long-term reduction in arm pain and disability, compared with advice to rest; and (b) whether immediate physiotherapy results in a long-term reduction in arm pain and disability, compared with physiotherapy delivered after a seven week waiting list period.<p></p> <b>Methods/Design</b><p></p> Between January 2012 and January 2014, new referrals to 14 out-patient physiotherapy departments were screened for potential eligibility. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to one of the following three groups in equal numbers: 1) advice to remain active, 2) advice to rest, 3) immediate physiotherapy. Patients were and followed up at 6, 13, and 26 weeks post-randomisation by self-complete postal questionnaire and, at six weeks, patients who had not received physiotherapy were offered it at this time. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients free of disability at 26 weeks, as determined by the modified DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) questionnaire.<p></p> We hypothesise (a) that advice to maintain usual activities while awaiting physiotherapy will be superior than advice to rest the arm; and (b) that fast-track physiotherapy will be superior to normal (waiting list) physiotherapy. These hypotheses will be examined using an intention-to-treat analysis.<p></p> <b>Discussion</b><p></p> Results from this trial will contribute to the evidence base underpinning the clinical management of patients with distal upper limb pain, and in particular, will provide guidance on whether they should be advised to rest the arm or remain active within the limits imposed by their symptoms

Return to work after carpal tunnel release surgery: a qualitative interview study

Background Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common nerve compression disorder which affects hand sensation and function. Carpal tunnel release surgery (CTR) is frequently performed to alleviate these symptoms. For many CTR patients, surgery occurs during their working lifetime, but there is currently no evidence-based guidance to inform clinicians or patients when it might be safe to return to different types of work afterwards. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the return to work experiences of patients who had recently undergone CTR. Methods Semi-structured 1:1 interviews were conducted with a subgroup of participants recruited to a multi-centre prospective cohort study. Interviewees were purposely selected to represent a range of demographic, clinical and occupational characteristics. All had recently undergone CTR and had returned to work. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework method. Participants were recruited until data saturation was achieved. Results Fourteen participants were interviewed: 11 women (median age 49 years, range 27–61) and 3 men (age range 51–68 years). Three key themes were identified. Theme 1 centred on the level of functional disability experienced immediately after surgery. There was an expectation that CTR would be a ‘minor’ procedure, but this did not match the participants’ experiences. Theme 2 explored the desire for validation for the time away from work, with participants recalling a need to justify their work absence to themselves as well as to their employers. Theme 3 focused on the participants’ reflections of handing their return to work and function, with many reporting uncertainties about what constituted appropriate activity loads and durations. There was a desire for specific information relating to individual work roles. Conclusion Individual return to work decision-making was largely influenced by the recommendations received. According to the views of participants, clinicians may be able to prepare patients better pre-operatively, especially with respect to function in the immediate post-operative period and by providing return to work guidance that can be tailored for individual work roles

Sickness absence after carpal tunnel release: a systematic review of the literature

Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of time to return to work (RTW) after carpal tunnel release (CTR), including return to different occupations and working patterns. Methods A systematic search from inception to 2016 was conducted using nine electronic databases, trial registries and grey literature repositories. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting RTW times after CTR were included. Study risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Time to RTW was summarized using median and range. Results A total of 56 relevant studies were identified: 18 randomized controlled trials and 38 observational studies. Only 4 studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. Reported RTW times ranged from 4–168 days. Few studies reported occupational information. Among 6 studies, median time to return to non-manual work was 21 days (range 7–41), compared with 39 days for manual work (range 18–101). Median time to return to modified or full duties was 23 days (ranges 12–50 and 17–64, respectively), as reported by 3 studies. There was no common method of defining, collecting or reporting RTW data. Conclusions This review highlights wide variation in reported RTW times after CTR. Whilst occupational factors may play a role, these were poorly reported, and there is currently limited evidence to inform individual patients of their expected duration of work absence after CTR. A standardized definition of RTW is needed, as well as an agreed method of collecting and reporting related data

Return to work recommendations after carpal tunnel release: a survey of UK hand surgeons and hand therapists

There is a limited evidence base from which to derive recommendations for safe and effective return to different types of occupation after carpal tunnel release surgery. The current practice of members of the British Society for Surgery of the Hand and the British Association of Hand Therapists was investigated with a questionnaire. In total, 173 surgeons and 137 therapists responded from an estimated sample of 1959. Median recommended return-to-work times were 7 days for desk-based duties, 15 days for repetitive light manual duties and 30 days for heavy manual duties. However, the responses were wide-ranging: 0–30 days for desk-based; 1–56 days for repetitive light manual; and 1–90 days for heavy manual. Variation in the recommended timescales for return to work and other functional activities after carpal tunnel release suggests that patients are receiving different and possibly even conflicting advice

Older working adults in the HEAF study are more likely to report loneliness after two years of follow-up if they have negative perceptions of their work quality

Bevilacqua, Gregorio D'Angelo, Stefania Ntani, Georgia Syddall, Holly Emma Harris, Elizabeth Clare Linaker, Cathy Stevens, Martin Cooper, Cyrus Walker-Bone, Karen eng England BMC Public Health. 2021 Mar 23;21(1):574. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10610-5.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Quantifying the population burden of musculoskeletal disorders, including impact on sickness absence: analysis of national Scottish data

Objectives Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) account for the greatest burden of years lived with disability globally. To prevent disability, good-quality services need to be commissioned, appropriate for local need. We analysed data collected systematically from a new musculoskeletal service serving 70% of the population of Scotland to evaluate: age- and sex-specific occurrence; anatomical distribution; and impact and effect on work ability. Methods A new centralized telephone-based triage for people with musculoskeletal disorders was set up in Scotland in 2015. Available to most of the population aged >16 years (>3 million people), data were collected systematically into a database detailing: anatomical site, nature of onset, duration, impact/risk (modified STarT score), deprivation level and, for those in employment, sickness absence. Results Data were available from 219 314 new callers, 2015–18. Calls were more frequently from women (60%), increased with age until the eighth decade, and 66% reported symptoms that had been present for >6 weeks. Callers were more likely to be living in more deprived areas in each age band between 20 and 64 years and tended to have higher-impact symptoms. The majority (53%) of callers were in employment, and 19% of these were off sick because of their symptoms. Sickness absence was more common among those with highest impact/risk scores from deprived areas with more acute symptoms. Discussion Large-scale systematic data collection for MSDs emphasizes the size and impact of the burden among adults aged >16 years. A socio-economic gradient is evident in terms of prevalence and impact of MSDs, particularly for sickness absence