Sarcopenia is a loss of muscle mass and function in the elderly that reduces mobility, diminishes quality of life, and can lead to fall-related injuries, which require costly hospitalization and ex...

/pdf/sarcopenia-aging-related-loss-of-muscle-mass-and-function-2u9nyjfrxt.pdf

Sarcopenia: Aging-Related Loss of Muscle Mass and Function.

https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:135623/ATTACHMENT01

An updated algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

Objective To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Methodology Systematic assessment of the literature. Evidence I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. ANTICOAGULATION • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There is limited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. Conclusions Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed. Disclaimer The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent "standard of care."

/pdf/an-update-of-comprehensive-evidence-based-guidelines-for-5cdrl3hsbh.pdf

An update of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. Part II: guidance and recommendations.

To compare the effectiveness of intraarticular (IA) multiple and single platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections as well as hyaluronic acid (HA) injections in different stages of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. A total of 162 patients with different stages of knee OA were randomly divided into four groups receiving 3 IA doses of PRP, one dose of PRP, one dose of HA or a saline injection (control). Then, each group was subdivided into two groups: early OA (Kellgren–Lawrence grade 0 with cartilage degeneration or grade I–III) and advanced OA (Kellgren–Lawrence grade IV). The patients were evaluated before the injection and at the 6-month follow-ups using the EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores. Adverse events and patient satisfaction were recorded. There was a statistically significant improvement in the IKDC and EQ-VAS scores in all the treatment groups compared with the control group. The knee scores of patients treated with three PRP injections were significantly better than those patients of the other groups. There was no significant difference in the scores of patients injected with one dose of PRP or HA. In the early OA subgroups, significantly better clinical results were achieved in the patients treated with three PRP injections, but there was no significant difference in the clinical results of patients with advanced OA among the treatment groups. The clinical results of this study suggest IA PRP and HA treatment for all stages of knee OA. For patients with early OA, multiple (3) PRP injections are useful in achieving better clinical results. For patients with advanced OA, multiple injections do not significantly improve the results of patients in any group. I.

Multiple PRP injections are more effective than single injections and hyaluronic acid in knees with early osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Sedentary behaviour (SB) is a risk factor for chronic disease and premature mortality. While many individual studies have examined the reliability and validity of various self-report measures for assessing SB, it is not clear, in general, how self-reported SB (e.g., questionnaires, logs, ecological momentary assessments (EMAs)) compares to device measures (e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers). The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare self-report versus device measures of SB in adults. Six bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included a comparable self-report and device measure of SB in adults. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses. The review included 185 unique studies. A total of 123 studies comprising 173 comparisons and data from 55,199 participants were used to examine general criterion validity. The average mean difference was -105.19 minutes/day (95% CI: -127.21, -83.17); self-report underestimated sedentary time by ~1.74 hours/day compared to device measures. Self-reported time spent sedentary at work was ~40 minutes higher than when assessed by devices. Single item measures performed more poorly than multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries. On average, when compared to inclinometers, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries were not significantly different, but had substantial amount of variability (up to 6 hours/day within individual studies) with approximately half over-reporting and half under-reporting. A total of 54 studies provided an assessment of reliability of a self-report measure, on average the reliability was good (ICC = 0.66). Evidence from this review suggests that single-item self-report measures generally underestimate sedentary time when compared to device measures. For accuracy, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries with a shorter recall period should be encouraged above single item questions and longer recall periods if sedentary time is a primary outcome of study. Users should also be aware of the high degree of variability between and within tools. Studies should exert caution when comparing associations between different self-report and device measures with health outcomes. PROSPERO CRD42019118755

/pdf/a-comparison-of-self-reported-and-device-measured-sedentary-4sr82cl6e7.pdf

A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This literature review focuses on aspects of sedentary behaviour (SB) in elderly. Since it has been identified as a distinct health risk, independent of physical activity, SB is a significant issue. This is particularly true for an ageing population as evidence shows that older adults (aged ≥65 years) are the most sedentary age group (on average 8.5–9.6 h daily sitting time). Accurate SB assessment is important for understanding this habitual behaviour and its impact. However, SB measurement is challenging, regardless of the method used. Although negative associations of SB in elderly have been reported for several health outcomes, evidence is inconclusive, apart from the evidence on the adverse SB effect on the all-cause mortality rate. Generally, strategies have been proposed to counteract SB, of which breaking prolonged sedentary bouts with at least light-intensity physical activity seems to be the most promising. Overall, further research in elderly is required to increase the evidence and to either support or refute the current findings. Moreover, further research will help to develop informed SB guidelines for an optimal strategy to counteract SB and its health effects in older adults.

/pdf/a-review-of-the-assessment-and-prevalence-of-sedentarism-in-3gslpwc8re.pdf

A review of the assessment and prevalence of sedentarism in older adults, its physiology/health impact and non-exercise mobility counter-measures

© 2018 Ryan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Background The aim was to determine the reliability and validity of IPAQ measured sedentary behaviour (SB) and moderate–vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in older persons whilst examining any sex differences in reliability and validity results. Method 89 participants (73.7 ± 6.3 years, 54% female) completed the IPAQ. Participants were fitted with a thigh mounted triaxial accelerometer (GeneActiv Original) for seven consecutive days and subsequently completed a second IPAQ. Results IPAQ showed weak reliability qualities for Total SB (hweek -1 ) and 10 minute MVPA (accumulated in bouts 10 continuous minutes, hweek -1 ). IPAQ had poor concurrent validity qualities for Total SB, 10 minute MVPA, but not Sporadic MVPA (accumulated in bouts < 10 continuous minutes, hweek -1 ). IPAQ only categorised participant physical behaviour classification correctly 2% of the time. Sex differences were only present for the correlation slope of IPAQ 10 minute MVPA reliability measures. Conclusion Our data suggests that the IPAQ is not suitable for assessing older adults habitual physical behaviour.

/pdf/reliability-and-validity-of-the-international-physical-26r9h1ugv2.pdf

Reliability and validity of the international physical activity questionnaire compared to calibrated accelerometer cut-off points in the quantification of sedentary behaviour and physical activity in older adults

The main goal of our study was to examine the effectiveness and safety of Fermathron plus, a specific brand of hyaluronic acid (HA), in patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis. In a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, 196 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (mean age ± SD, 59.4 ± 9.9 years, Kellgren-Lawrence grade 1-3) were given either 3 weekly intra-articular injections of HA or saline (placebo). Although pain and functional scores (WOMAC scale) improved significantly from baseline up to 6 months, HA was not superior to placebo at any follow-up (VAS pain 50 m walking from 56.4 to 38.1, P < .001, and 58.2 to 39.6, P < .001, respectively). No subgroup analysis resulted in superior outcomes. No serious adverse events were noticed.

No difference between intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid and placebo for mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial

Physical activity and older adults

Follow-up of pseudotumors observed with metal-artefact reducing sequence (MARS)-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (MoMTHA) depends on how severe these pseudotumors are graded. Several pseudotumor grading systems for MARS-MRI have emerged but little is known of their validity. We studied the intra- and interobserver reliability of three different pseudotumor grading systems in a single cohort of MoMTHA. Two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists independently used three different pseudotumor grading systems for classifying MARS-MRI results of the same cohort of 42 MoMTHA patients (49 hips, mean follow-up 5.2 years). Intraobserver and interobserver reliability for each grading system was measured using Cohen’s kappa (κ). Variance in pseudotumor severity grading between systems was analyzed. Intraobserver reliability on grading pseudotumor severity with the Anderson, Matthies, and Hauptfleisch grading system scored 0.47, 0.10, and 0.35 (observer 1), and 0.75, 0.38, and 0.42 (observer 2), respectively. Interobserver reliability scores for pseudotumor severity were 0.58, 0.23, and 0.34, respectively. Intraobserver reliability for grading pseudotumor severity on MARS-MRI ranged from poor to good, dependent on observer and grading system used. Interobserver reliability scored best with the Anderson system. A more succinct pseudotumor severity grading system is needed for clinical use.

Jorgen A. Wullems

Papers

A review of the assessment and prevalence of sedentarism in older adults, its physiology/health impact and non-exercise mobility counter-measures

Reliability and validity of the international physical activity questionnaire compared to calibrated accelerometer cut-off points in the quantification of sedentary behaviour and physical activity in older adults

No difference between intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid and placebo for mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial

Physical activity and older adults

Comparison of different pseudotumor grading systems in a single cohort of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients.