| Literature DB >> 33376997 |
Jan K G Louwerens1, P Paul F M Kuijer2, Inger N Sierevelt1, Michel P J van den Bekerom3, Barend J van Royen4, Denise Eygendaal4,5, Arthur van Noort1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the impact of rotator cuff calcific tendinitis on patients' self-reported work ability and sick leave, to compare work ability and sick leave with shoulder function after minimally invasive treatment, and to assess which prognostic factors influence the change in work ability.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33376997 PMCID: PMC7754604 DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2020.07.021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil ISSN: 2666-061X
Demographics and Baseline Characteristics
| Total (n = 67) | |
|---|---|
| Sex, female, n (%) | 45 (67) |
| Age, mean (SD) | 49.6 (6.4) |
| BMI, mean (SD) | 25.3 (3.7) |
| Non-musculoskeletal comorbidities, n (%) | 25 (37) |
| Duration of complaints, y, mean (SD) | 3.2 (3) |
| Dominant side affected, n (%) | 43 (64) |
| Size of calcific deposit, mm, mean (SD) | 15.7 (6.2) |
| Location, n (%) | |
| Supraspinatus | 58 (87) |
| Infraspinatus | 5 (8) |
| Subscapularis | 4 (6) |
| Work status, n (%) | |
| Salaried | 52 (78) |
| Self-employed | 15 (22) |
| Physical workload, n (%) | |
| Light work | 39 (58) |
| Medium work | 16 (24) |
| Heavy work | 12 (18) |
| Working hours a week (mean) | 31.0 (10.7) |
| Self-reported work-relatedness of symptoms, n (%) | |
| Related | 14 (21) |
| Not related | 17 (25) |
| Don’t know | 36 (54) |
| CMS, mean (SD) | 66.9 (12.1) |
| DASH, mean (SD) | 37.4 (15.4) |
| VAS pain, mean (SD) | 5.9 (1.6) |
BMI, body mass index, CMS, Constant–Murley Score, DASH, Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, SD, standard deviation, VAS, visual analog score.
Work-Related and Clinical Outcome
| Baseline (n = 67) | Six Months (n = 66) | One Year (n = 64) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sick Leave, n (%) | ||||
| None | 48 (71.6) | 54 (81.8) | 60 (93.8) | – |
| Partial | 10 (14.9) | 7 (10.6) | 2 (3.1) | – |
| Full time | 9 (13.4) | 5 (7.6) | 2 (3.1) | – |
| Days of sick leave a month, mean (95% CI) | 3.3 (1.8-4.8) | 2.2 (0.9-3.6) | 0.7 (0.0-1.5) | – |
| Self-reported work-ability questionnaire, mean (95% CI) | ||||
| Quality | 7.7 (7.0-8.4) | 8.3 (7.6-9.0) | 9.2 (8.7-9.6) | <.001 |
| Quantity | 7.7 (7.0-8.4) | 8.3 (7.6-9.0) | 9.1 (8.7-9.6) | <.001 |
| Work-ability | 6.1 (5.5-6.8) | 7.8 (7.1-8.4) | 8.5 (8.0-9.0) | <.001 |
| Functional limitations | 4,7 (3.9-4.4) | 7.4 (6.7-8.1) | 8.0 (7.3-8.6) | <.001 |
| Clinical outcome measures, mean (95% CI) | ||||
| CMS | 66.9 (63.9-69.8) | 81.3 (77.1-85.5) | 87.2 (84.2-90.1) | <.001 |
| DASH | 37.4 (33.6-41.1) | 20.1 (15.7-24.4) | 14.1 (10.5-17.6) | <.001 |
| VAS (pain) | 5.9 (5.5-6.3) | 3.6 (2.9-4.2) | 3.0 (2.3-3.7) | <.001 |
CI, confidence interval; CMS, Constant-Murley Score; DASH, Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score; SD, standard deviation; VAS, visual analog score.
Prognostic Variables for Work Ability
| Six Months | One Year | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β-coefficient (95% CI) | β-coefficient (95% CI) | |||
| Univariate | ||||
| Age | –0.07 (–0.17; 0.04) | .20 | –0.04 (–0.14; 0.06) | .41 |
| Sex | 0.43 (–1.02; 1.89) | .56 | 0.53 (–0.79; 1.84) | .43 |
| High-energy ESWT vs UGN | 0.09 (–1.28; 1.47) | .90 | 0.74 (–0.50; 1.99) | .24 |
| Resorption of the calcific deposit | 0.64 (–0.87; 2.15) | .40 | 1.08 (–0.27; 2.43) | .11 |
| Workload (light vs medium/heavy) | ||||
| Work status (self-employed vs salaried) | 0.31 (–1.53; 2.15) | .74 | 0.54 (–0.92; 2.00) | .46 |
| Final model | ||||
| Workload (light vs medium/heavy) | ||||
NOTE. Boldface indicates statistical significance.
ESWT, extracorporeal shockwave therapy; UGN, ultrasound-guided needling.
Fig 1Difference in change from baseline work ability scores after 6 months and 1 year between the 3 physical workload categories. ∗P < .001 in comparison with the category “low."