Survey on joint hypermobility in university students aged 18–25 years old

Abstract

Background: Joint hypermobility is defined as a wide range of movements beyond the physiological limits, it has been recognized in healthy people, gymnasts, acrobats, and carriers of genetic affections of connective tissue. A survey among young adults was conducted to describe the frequency of joint hypermobility, estimating its impact on function and quality of life. Methods: Volunteer university students aged 18 to 25 years old who answered a valid 5-item questionnaire about hypermobility, a physical activity questionnaire, and the Brazilian version of the Medical Outcome Survey Short Form 36 (SF-36) were included. Hypermobility was also assessed by a guided self-examination, with Beighton's criteria being scored and scores greater than or equal to 4 or less than 4 being discriminated. Results: A total of 388 subjects were included, of which 299 were women (77.06%) and 89 were men (22.94%); the median age was 23 years old. Generalized joint hypermobility (Beighton score ≥ 4) was observed in 104 individuals (26.8%). Localized hypermobility (Beighton score 1-3) was observed in 135 (34.79%) individuals, where the hypermobility of the 5th finger was the most frequent in 165 (57.47%) individuals, followed by hypermobility of the thumb in 126 (32.56%) individuals, hypermobility of the elbows and knees each in 72 (18.6%) individuals, and hypermobility of the spine in 69 (17.79%) individuals. The descriptive observation of physical activity indicated regular practice. The correlation coefficients between the SF-36 domains and hypermobility scores were very low and statistical comparison not significant. Conclusion: In this population of youngsters, predominantly women, localized hypermobility was more frequent than generalized hypermobility; however, with low impact on health domains and quality of life scores, estimated in each domain of the SF-36, the physical and mental component scores, and the time dedicated to physical activity.

Oxidative Stress and Musculoskeletal Pain in University Students with Generalized Joint Hypermobility: A Case–Control Study

“…44 In contrast to our results, localized hypermobility was more frequent in younger ages than generalized hypermobility with low impact or association with the physical and mental component scores as well as the time dedicated to physical activity. 45 In this study, the incidence of GJH significantly associated with poor physical activity, higher pain intensity. Previous studies showed that hypermobility was significantly associated with the sedentary lifestyle and musculoskeletal pain in adolescents, which is significantly considered as a two-fold increased risk factor among younger ages with hypermobility.…”

“… 44 In contrast to our results, localized hypermobility was more frequent in younger ages than generalized hypermobility with low impact or association with the physical and mental component scores as well as the time dedicated to physical activity. 45 …”

Joint hypermobility determined by the Beighton score in university students

“…En el presente estudio, se objetivó que un 38% de los estudiantes explorados presentaban 4 o más puntos del Score de Beighton para HMA. cuencia de mujeres que cumplían con los criterios de Beighton 1,9,10 . Se han postulado varias teorías para explicar esta diferencia, una de ellas considera que posiblemente las hormonas tengan un efecto en las propiedades mecánicas de los ligamentos 1,11 .…”

Defining trapezial dysplasia – analysis of trapezial inclination in a normal population

“…The absence of an osteoarthritic joint also makes them unsuitable candidates for classic surgical procedures like total joint replacement or trapeziectomy. Joint instability can be considered when there is a range of motion beyond physiological limits (Antonio and Magalhaes, 2018). For the TMC joint, instability can be of ligamentous or bony origin; in the former, general hyperlaxity can lead to insufficient ligamentous stabilizers of the TMC joint resulting in radial subluxation of the first metacarpal (Wolf et al., 2011).…”