Clinical study on the effect of infrared radiation of a tiled stove on patients with hand osteoarthritis

Comparison of efficacy of fluidotherapy and paraffin bath in hand osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial

Objectives

This study aims to compare the efficacy of paraffin bath therapy and fluidotherapy on pain, hand muscle strength, functional status, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA).

Patients and methods

This prospective randomized controlled study included 77 patients (8 males, 69 females; mean age: 63.1±10.3 years; range 39 to 88 years) with primary hand OA who applied between July 2017 and March 2018. The patients were randomized into two groups with the sealed envelope method: Paraffin bath therapy (20 min, one session per day, for two weeks) was applied for 36 patients whereas 41 patients received fluidotherapy for the same period. The pain severity of the patients, both at rest and during activities of daily living (ADL) within the last 48 hours was questioned and scored using Visual Analog Scale. Duruöz Hand Index (DHI) was used to evaluate hand functions. Gross grip strength was measured using Jamar dynamometer whereas fine grip strength was measured using pinch meter in three different positions (lateral pinch, tip pinch, and palmar pinch). The 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) was used to analyze the QoL. All measurements were performed before, immediately after, and three months after treatment.

Results

Improvement was observed in pain score at rest and during ADL, DHI scores, gross and fine grip strengths, and SF-36 subscores in both groups after treatment. However, no significant difference was observed between the groups.

Conclusion

Both fluidotherapy and paraffin bath therapy have been found to have positive effects on pain, hand muscle strength, functional status, and QoL in the treatment of hand OA. However, no superiority was observed between the two treatment modalities.

2018 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis

Since publication of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for management of hand osteoarthritis (OA) in 2007 new evidence has emerged. The aim was to update these recommendations. EULAR standardised operating procedures were followed. A systematic literature review was performed, collecting the evidence regarding all non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical treatment options for hand OA published to date. Based on the evidence and expert opinion from an international task force of 19 physicians, healthcare professionals and patients from 10 European countries formulated overarching principles and recommendations. Level of evidence, grade of recommendation and level of agreement were allocated to each statement. Five overarching principles and 10 recommendations were agreed on. The overarching principles cover treatment goals, information provision, individualisation of treatment, shared decision-making and the need to consider multidisciplinary and multimodal (non-pharmacological, pharmacological, surgical) treatment approaches. Recommendations 1-3 cover different non-pharmacological treatment options (education, assistive devices, exercises and orthoses). Recommendations 4-8 describe the role of different pharmacological treatments, including topical treatments (preferred over systemic treatments, topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) being first-line choice), oral analgesics (particularly NSAIDs to be considered for symptom relief for a limited duration), chondroitin sulfate (for symptom relief), intra-articular glucocorticoids (generally not recommended, consider for painful interphalangeal OA) and conventional/biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (discouraged). Considerations for surgery are described in recommendation 9. The last recommendation relates to follow-up. The presented EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of hand OA, based on expert opinion and research evidence.

Efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical treatment for hand osteoarthritis: a systematic literature review informing the 2018 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis

To update the evidence on efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical interventions for hand osteoarthritis (OA), a systematic literature review was performed up to June 2017, including (randomised) controlled trials or Cochrane systematic reviews. Main efficacy outcomes were pain, function and hand strength. Risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analysis was performed when advisable. Of 7036 records, 127 references were included, of which 50 studies concerned non-pharmacological, 64 pharmacological and 12 surgical interventions. Many studies had high risk of bias, mainly due to inadequate randomisation or blinding. Beneficial non-pharmacological treatments included hand exercise and prolonged thumb base splinting, while single trials showed positive results for joint protection and using assistive devices. Topical and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) proved equally effective, while topical NSAIDs led to less adverse events. Single trials demonstrated positive results for chondroitin sulfate and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in interphalangeal joints. Pharmacological treatments for which no clear beneficial effect was shown include paracetamol, intra-articular thumb base injections of glucocorticoids or hyaluronic acid, low-dose oral glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine and anti-tumour necrosis factor. No trials compared surgery to sham or non-operative treatment. No surgical intervention for thumb base OA appeared more effective than another, although in general more complex procedures led to more complications. No interventions slowed radiographic progression. In conclusion, an overview of the evidence on efficacy and safety of treatment options for hand OA was presented and informed the task force for the updated European League Against Rheumatism management recommendations for hand OA.

Systematic review of non-surgical therapies for osteoarthritis of the hand: an update

OBJECTIVE

To update our earlier systematic reviews which evaluated all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA). Surgical therapies were not evaluated.

DESIGN

RCTs published between March 2008 and December 2015 were added to the previous systematic reviews.

RESULTS

A total of 95 RCTs evaluating various pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in hand OA were analyzed in this update. Generally, the methodological quality of these RCTs has improved since the last update, with more studies describing their methods for randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment. However, RCTs continue to be weakened by a lack of consistent case definition and a lack of standardized outcome assessments specific to hand OA. The number and location of evaluated hand joints continues to be underreported, and only 25% of RCTs adequately described the method used to ensure allocation concealment. These remain major weaknesses of published RCTs. A meta-analysis could not be performed because of marked study heterogeneity, insufficient statistical data available in the published RCTs, and a small number of identical comparators.

CONCLUSION

Hand OA is a complex area in which to study the efficacy of therapies. There has been an improvement in the overall design and conduct of RCTs, however, additional large RCTs with a more robust methodological approach specific to hand OA are needed in order to make clinically relevant conclusions about the efficacy of the diverse treatment options available.

Instruments Measuring Pain, Physical Function, or Patient’s Global Assessment in Hand Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Literature Search

Objective.

Description of use and metric properties of instruments measuring pain, physical function, or patient’s global assessment (PtGA) in hand osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods.

Medical literature databases up to January 2014 were systematically reviewed for studies reporting on instruments measuring pain, physical function, or PtGA in hand OA. The frequency of the use of these instruments were described, as well as their metric properties, including discrimination (reliability, sensitivity to change), feasibility, and validity.

Results.

In 66 included studies, various questionnaires and performance- or assessor-based instruments were applied for evaluation of pain, physical function, or PtGA. No major differences regarding metric properties were observed between the instruments, although the amount of supporting evidence varied. The most frequently evaluated questionnaires were the Australian/Canadian Hand OA Index (AUSCAN) pain subscale and visual analog scale (VAS) pain for pain assessment, and the AUSCAN function subscale and Functional Index for Hand OA (FIHOA) for physical function assessment. Excellent reliability was shown for the AUSCAN and FIHOA, and good sensitivity to change for all mentioned instruments; additionally, the FIHOA had good feasibility. Good construct validity was suggested for all mentioned questionnaires. The most commonly applied performance- or assessor-based instruments were the grip and pinch strength for the assessment of physical function, and the assessment of pain by palpation. For these measures, good sensitivity to change and construct validity were established.

Conclusion.

The AUSCAN, FIHOA, VAS pain, grip and pinch strength, and pain on palpation were most frequently used and provided most supporting evidence for good metric properties. More research has to be performed to compare the different instruments with each other.

Effects of rehabilitative interventions on pain, function and physical impairments in people with hand osteoarthritis: a systematic review

Introduction

Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with pain, reduced grip strength, loss of range of motion and joint stiffness leading to impaired hand function and difficulty with daily activities. The effectiveness of different rehabilitation interventions on specific treatment goals has not yet been fully explored. The objective of this systematic review is to provide evidence based knowledge on the treatment effects of different rehabilitation interventions for specific treatment goals for hand OA.

Methods

A computerized literature search of Medline, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ISI Web of Science, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and SCOPUS was performed. Studies that had an evidence level of 2b or higher and that compared a rehabilitation intervention with a control group and assessed at least one of the following outcome measures - pain, physical hand function or other measures of hand impairment - were included. The eligibility and methodological quality of trials were systematically assessed by two independent reviewers using the PEDro scale. Treatment effects were calculated using standardized mean difference and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Ten studies, of which six were of higher quality (PEDro score >6), were included. The rehabilitation techniques reviewed included three studies on exercise, two studies each on laser and heat, and one study each on splints, massage and acupuncture. One higher quality trial showed a large positive effect of 12-month use of a night splint on hand pain, function, strength and range of motion. Exercise had no effect on hand pain or function although it may be able to improve hand strength. Low level laser therapy may be useful for improving range of motion. No rehabilitation interventions were found to improve stiffness.

Conclusions

There is emerging high quality evidence to support that rehabilitation interventions can offer significant benefits to individuals with hand OA. A summary of the higher quality evidence is provided to assist with clinical decision making based on current evidence. Further high-quality research is needed concerning the effects of rehabilitation interventions on specific treatment goals for hand OA.

A systematic review of conservative interventions for osteoarthritis of the hand

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION

Hand therapy interventions for patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA) can include splinting, joint protection technique instruction, paraffin, exercises, and provision of a home exercise program.

PURPOSE

Examine the quality of the evidence regarding the hand therapy interventions for hand OA.

METHODS

Twenty-one studies dated between 1986 and 2009 were included in the systematic review for analysis.

RESULTS

The current evidence provides varied support for the interventions of orthotics, hand exercises, joint protection techniques, the utilization of adaptive devices, and paraffin. Findings for the use of joint protection techniques are supported for improvements in function and pain reduction. Minimal evidence exists for paraffin used for the treatment of hand OA.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature supports the use of orthotics, hand exercises, application of heat, and joint protection education combined with provision of adaptive equipment to improve grip strength and function.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2A.

Systematic review of non-surgical therapies for osteoarthritis of the hand: an update

OBJECTIVE

To update our earlier systematic review which evaluated all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA). Surgical therapies were not evaluated.

METHOD

RCTs published between August 2004 and February 2008 were added to the original systematic review.

RESULTS

A total of 44 RCTs evaluating various pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in hand OA were analyzed in this update. Generally, these RCTs were of low quality. RCTs were weakened by a lack of consistent case definition and by a lack of standardized outcome assessments. The methods used for randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment were rarely described. The number and location of symptomatic hand joints per treatment group at baseline was usually not stated. The number and location of evaluated hand joints at the end of the study was also usually not stated. A meta-analysis could not be performed since most of the treatments studied did not have more than one identical comparison to allow pooling of the data.

CONCLUSIONS

It is apparent that hand OA is a more complex area in which to study the efficacy of therapies when compared to hip and knee OA. The recently published OARSI Consensus Recommendations will improve the design and conduct of future RCTs in hand OA.