Raynaud′s phenomenon among men and women with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to vibration exposure

Abstract

Raynaud's phenomenon is characterized by constriction in blood supply to the fingers causing finger blanching, of white fingers (WF) and is triggered by cold. Earlier studies found that workers using vibrating hand-held tools and who had vibration-induced white fingers (VWF) had an increased risk for hearing loss compared with workers without VWF. This study examined the occurrence of Raynaud's phenomenon among men and women with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to vibration exposure. All 342 participants had a confirmed noise-induced hearing loss medico legally accepted as work-related by AFA Insurance. Each subject answered a questionnaire concerning their health status and the kinds of exposures they had at the time when their hearing loss was first discovered. The questionnaire covered types of exposures, discomforts in the hands or fingers, diseases and medications affecting the blood circulation, the use of alcohol and tobacco and for women, the use of hormones and whether they had been pregnant. The participation rate was 41% (n = 133) with 38% (n = 94) for men and 50% (n = 39) for women. 84 men and 36 women specified if they had Raynaud's phenomenon and also if they had used hand-held vibrating machines. Nearly 41% of them had used hand-held vibrating machines and 18% had used vibrating machines at least 2 h each workday. There were 23 men/6 women with Raynaud's phenomenon. 37% reported WF among those participants who were exposed to hand-arm vibration (HAV) and 15% among those not exposed to HAV. Among the participants with hearing loss with daily use of vibrating hand-held tools more than twice as many reports WF compared with participants that did not use vibrating hand-held tools. This could be interpreted as Raynaud's phenomenon could be associated with an increased risk for noise-induced hearing loss. However, the low participation rate limits the generalization of the results from this study.

The Association Between Occupational Exposure to Hand–Arm Vibration and Hearing Loss: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Fifteen original research articles reporting the results of 17 separate study populations obtained through online database literature searches met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Table 1 summarizes the studies from Canada [ 16 , 17 ], Finland [ [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] ], Japan [ [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] ], Sweden [ [26] , [27] , [28] ], Taiwan [ 29 ], and the United Kingdom [ 30 ]. Search results revealed no study in which the research question of interest (i.e., what is the relationship between hand–arm vibration exposure from occupational use of power and pneumatic hand tools and permanent hearing loss?)…”

“… Pettersson et al. (2014B) [ 27 ], Sweden What is the occurrence of Raynaud's phenomenon among workers with NIHL in relation to vibration exposure? Cross-sectional survey, 1995–2004 Source population: male and female workers with claims for NIHL accepted by AFA Insurance Company Age: 18–55 years Sample population: 261 male and 81 female workers Exposure: Noise Hand–arm vibration Outcome: Hearing loss Raynaud phenomenon or white finger Forty-four male and 39 female workers with compensable hearing loss claims participated in the survey.…”

“…The studies included 12 cohort studies (the study by Turcot et al [ 16 ] reporting 2 study populations and the study by Starck et al [ 20 ] reporting 2 populations) [ [16] , [23] , 26 , 28 ], two cross-sectional surveys [ 27 , 30 ], one case–control matched pair study [ 24 ], one cross-sectional study [ 25 ], and one experimental study [ 29 ].…”

“…One cohort had a small sample of 72 to 203 participants over a period of less than 4 years [ 18 ], and the experimental study had a small sample of 23 volunteer participants with a very short vibration exposure period of 30, 60, and 120 minutes [ 29 ]. One cross-sectional survey had an overall response rate of 41% among a sample population of 342 [ 27 ], whereas the other cross-sectional survey had a 65% response rate among a source population of more than 21,000 [ 30 ].…”

“…One study selected participants from a population of welders [ 26 ], one study included mine workers [ 16 ], and one study comprised participants from a population of shipyard platers (also known as steelworkers) [ 20 ]. One cross-sectional survey randomly selected participants from a broad range of general, nonmilitary occupations [ 29 ], while the most common occupations in the other cross-sectional survey were teachers, military personnel, and welders [ 27 ]. Five studies specifically limited participants to male workers [ 16 , 17 , 22 , 25 , 26 ], whereas three studies expressly included male and female workers [ 27 , 29 , 30 ].…”