This large-scale retrospective study showed low recurrence rates after MMS for primary and recurrent BCCs. Residual BCCs treated with MMS had relatively higher recurrence rates. The risk of recurrence for MMS-treated residual aggressive BCCs was more than four times higher than that for primary non-aggressive BCCs.

Aims With novel promising therapies potentially limiting progression of Dupuytren’s disease (DD), better patient stratification is needed. We aimed to quantify DD development and progression after seven years in a population-based cohort, and to identify factors predictive of disease development or progression. Methods All surviving participants from our previous prevalence study were invited to participate in the current prospective cohort study. Participants were examined for presence of DD and Iselin’s classification was applied. They were asked to complete comprehensive questionnaires. Disease progression was defined as advancement to a further Iselin stage or surgery. Potential predictive factors were assessed using multivariable regression analyses. Of 763 participants in our original study, 398 were available for further investigation seven years later. Results We identified 143/398 (35.9%) participants with DD, of whom 56 (39.2%) were newly diagnosed. Overall, 20/93 (21.5%) previously affected participants had disease progression, while 6/93 (6.5%) patients showed disease regression. Disease progression occurred more often in patients who initially had advanced disease. Multivariable regression analyses revealed that both ectopic lesions and a positive family history of DD are independent predictors of disease progression. Previous hand injury predicts development of DD. Conclusion Disease progression occurred in 21.5% of DD patients in our study. The higher the initial disease stage, the greater the proportion of participants who had disease progression at follow-up. Both ectopic lesions and a positive family history of DD predict disease progression. These patient-specific factors may be used to identify patients who might benefit from treatment that prevents progression. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):704–710.

No abstract

Objective To examine quality of life in internationally adopted children with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) versus non-adopted children with CL/P. Design Cross sectional study. Setting Multidisciplinary cleft team of a secondary and tertiary hospital in the Netherlands. Methods Parents of children under the age of 8 treated by the multidisciplinary cleft team of our institutions were asked to fill out a questionnaire containing demographic and clinical data and a validated parent proxy measure of cleft-specific quality of life instrument for children aged 0–8: the CleftChild-8. Adopted children were matched to non-adopted children using propensity score matching based on sex, age, type of cleft, if palatal surgery was completed and the level of education of the parent. CleftChild-8 scores were then compared between the matched samples of adopted and non-adopted children with CL/P. Main Outcome Measure(s) Differences in (sub)domain scores of the CleftChild-8. Results Most median CleftChild-8 scores of the adopted children (n = 29) were slightly lower compared to the 29 matched non-adopted children. A significant difference was seen for the domain score ‘satisfaction with (operative) treatment’ and 3 of the 13 subdomain scores: ‘post-operative results’, ‘acceptance by siblings’ and ‘acceptance by family/friends’. Conclusions By parent report, adopted children with CL/P experienced some areas of lower quality of life when compared to non-adopted children. Members of cleft teams should be aware of the problems associated with adoption and offer additional guidance and counseling to adopted children and their parents.

ObjectivesDupuytren’s disease (DD) is a fibroproliferative disorder of the hands, characterised by the development of fibrous nodules and cords that may cause disabling contractures of the fingers. The role of manual work exposure in the aetiology of DD is controversial. We investigated whether current occupational exposure to manual work is associated with DD, and if there is a dose–response relationship.MethodsIn this population-based cohort analysis, we used data from the UK Biobank cohort. Our primary outcome was the presence of DD. The exposure of interest was manual work, measured for each participant in two different ways to allow two independent analyses to be undertaken: (1) the current manual work status of the occupation at the time of recruitment, and (2) a cumulative manual work exposure score, calculated based on the occupational history. We performed propensity score matching and applied a logistic regression model.ResultsWe included 196 265 participants for the current manual work analysis, and 96 563 participants for the dose–response analysis. Participants whose current occupation usually/always involved manual work were more often affected with DD than participants whose occupation sometimes/never involved manual work (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.49, p<0.001). There was a positive dose–response relationship between cumulative manual work exposure score and DD. Each increment in cumulative work exposure score increased the odds by 17% (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.27, p<0.001).ConclusionsManual work exposure is a risk factor for DD, with a clear dose–response relationship. Physicians treating patients should recognise DD as a work-related disorder and inform patients accordingly.

Background: Web-based patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could help surgeons remotely assess the need for examination and subsequent treatment of patients with Dupuytren disease (DD). The authors studied whether the Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main (URAM) and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) could predict DD treatment. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, the authors compared MHQ and URAM scores of treated patients with those of untreated patients. For the treatment group, the authors selected a score closest to 1 year before treatment. For controls, the authors randomly selected a score. The authors also tested the predictive value of a 1-year change score between 15 months and 6 weeks before treatment. The primary outcome measure was DD treatment. The predictive value was determined using the area under the curve (AUC). An AUC greater than 0.70 was considered good predictive ability; 0.70 to 0.50, poor predictive ability; and less than 0.50, no predictive ability. Results: The authors included 141 patients for the MHQ analysis and 145 patients for the URAM analysis. The AUC of the MHQ and URAM scores measured 1 year before treatment were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.88) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.82), respectively. The 1-year change score resulted in an AUC less than 0.60 for both questionnaires. Conclusions: The results show that both the MHQ and URAM score measured around 1 year before treatment can predict treatment for DD. If future studies show that telemonitoring of patients with DD with PROMs is also cost-effective, web-based PROMs could optimize patient care and effectiveness of DD treatment. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.