Key Points Question Is exercise-based physical therapy noninferior to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy during a 5-year follow-up period in patients aged 45 to 70 years with a degenerative meniscal tear? Findings In this noninferiority randomized clinical trial, no significant or clinically relevant between-group difference in patient-reported knee function was noted on the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form at the 5-year follow-up. Physical therapy was not inferior to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Meaning The findings of this trial support the recommendation that exercise-based physical therapy should be the preferred treatment over surgery for degenerative meniscal tears.

No abstract

Purpose Marker-by-treatment analyses are promising new methods in internal medicine, but have not yet been implemented in orthopaedics. With this analysis, specific cut-off points may be obtained, that can potentially identify whether meniscal surgery or physical therapy is the superior intervention for an individual patient. This study aimed to introduce a novel approach in orthopaedic research to identify relevant treatment selection markers that affect treatment outcome following meniscal surgery or physical therapy in patients with degenerative meniscal tears. Methods Data were analysed from the ESCAPE trial, which assessed the treatment of patients over 45 years old with a degenerative meniscal tear. The treatment outcome of interest was a clinically relevant improvement on the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form at 3, 12, and 24 months follow-up. Logistic regression models were developed to predict the outcome using baseline characteristics (markers), the treatment (meniscal surgery or physical therapy), and a marker-by-treatment interaction term. Interactions with p < 0.10 were considered as potential treatment selection markers and used these to develop predictiveness curves which provide thresholds to identify marker-based differences in clinical outcomes between the two treatments. Results Potential treatment selection markers included general physical health, pain during activities, knee function, BMI, and age. While some marker-based thresholds could be identified at 3, 12, and 24 months follow-up, none of the baseline characteristics were consistent markers at all three follow-up times. Conclusion This novel in-depth analysis did not result in clear clinical subgroups of patients who are substantially more likely to benefit from either surgery or physical therapy. However, this study may serve as an exemplar for other orthopaedic trials to investigate the heterogeneity in treatment effect. It will help clinicians to quantify the additional benefit of one treatment over another at an individual level, based on the patient’s baseline characteristics. Level of evidence II.

This qualitative study aimed to explore experiences of women with persistent pain following breast cancer treatment, including their perceptions about the cause of their pain, how they manage their pain and their interactions with healthcare providers related to their pain during and following breast cancer treatment. Fourteen women who experienced pain for more than 3 months following breast cancer treatment were recruited from the general breast cancer survivorship community. Focus groups and in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted by one interviewer, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded and analysed using Framework Analysis. Three main descriptive themes emerged from the interview transcripts: (1) characteristics of pain, (2) interactions with healthcare providers and (3) pain management. Women had various types and degrees of persistent pain, all of which they believed were related to breast cancer treatment. Most felt like they were not given enough information pre- or post-treatment and believed their experience and ability to cope with pain would have been better if they were given accurate information and advice about (the possibility of) experiencing persistent pain. Pain management strategies ranged from trial and error approaches, to pharmacotherapy, and to ‘just coping with the pain”. These findings highlight the importance of the provision of empathetic supportive care before, during and after cancer treatment that can facilitate access to relevant information, multidisciplinary care teams (including allied health professionals) and consumer support.

Neuroimmune responses remain understudied in people with neck pain. This study aimed to (1) compare a broad range of systemic neuroimmune responses in people with non-specific neck pain (N = 112), cervical radiculopathy (N = 25), and healthy participants (N = 23); and (2) explore their associations with clinical, psychological and lifestyle factors. Quantification of systemic neuroimmune responses involved ex vivo serum and in vitro evoked-release levels of inflammatory markers, and characterization of white blood cell phenotypes. Inflammatory indices were calculated to obtain a measure of total immune status and were considered the main outcomes. Differences between groups were tested using analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) and multivariable regression models. Compared to healthy participants, the ex vivo pro-inflammatory index was increased in people with non-specific neck pain (β = 0.70, p = 0.004) and people with cervical radiculopathy (β = 0.64, p = 0.04). There was no difference between non-specific neck pain and cervical radiculopathy (β = 0.23, p = 0.36). Compared to non-specific neck pain, people with cervical radiculopathy showed lower numbers of monocytes (β = −59, p = 0.01). There were no differences between groups following in vitro whole blood stimulation (p ≥ 0.23) or other differences in the number and phenotype of white blood cells (p ≥ 0.07). The elevated ex vivo neuroimmune responses in people with non-specific neck pain and radiculopathy support the contention that these conditions encompass inflammatory components that can be measured systemically. There were multiple significant associations with clinical, psychological and lifestyle factors, such as pain intensity (β = 0.25) and anxiety (β = 0.23) in non-specific neck pain, visceral adipose tissue (β = 0.43) and magnification (β = 0.59) in cervical radiculopathy, and smoking (β = 0.59) and visceral adipose tissue (β = 0.52) in healthy participants. These associations were modified by sex, indicating different neuroimmune associations for females and males.

No abstract

<p>  </p> <p>This cross-sectional study aimed to quantify the somatosensory dysfunction in the hand in people with diabetes with distal symmetrical polyneuropathy (DSPN) in hands; and explore early signs of nerve dysfunction in people with diabetes without DSPN in hands. The clinical diagnosis of DSPN was confirmed with electrodiagnosis and corneal confocal microscopy. Thermal and mechanical nerve function in the hand was assessed using Quantitative Sensory Tests. Measurements were compared between healthy participants (n=31), people with diabetes without DSPN (n=35), people with DSPN in feet but not hands (DSPN FEET ONLY; n=31); and people with DSPN in hands and feet (DSPN HANDS & FEET; n=28) using one-way between-group analyses of variance. The somatosensory profile of the hand in people with DSPN HANDS & FEET showed widespread loss of thermal and mechanical detection. This profile in hands is comparable to the profile in the feet of people with DSPN in feet. Remarkably, people with DSPN FEET ONLY already showed a similar profile of widespread loss of nerve function in their hands. People with diabetes without DSPN in feet already had some nerve dysfunction in their hands. These findings suggest that nerve function assessment in hands should become more routine in people with diabetes.</p>

No abstract