See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352716012

Ch 4: Inflammatory Arthrits: In "Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation: Report of a

working party convened by the British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine. "
(Neumann V Ed) . Published...

Chapter · September 2004

CITATIONS READS

0 303

1 author:

Alison Hammond
University of Salford
257 PUBLICATIONS 4,680 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alison Hammond on 24 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BSRM

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Report of a working party convened by the British Society of

Rehabilitation Medicine

Published by the British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine

September 2004
 Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Report of a working party convened by the British Society of

Rehabilitation Medicine

Chair: Dr Vera Neumann

The British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine is a registered charity (no 293196), with
membership open to all registered medical practitioners interested and concerned with its
objectives.

Further information and copies of this report can be obtained from:

The British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine

C/o Royal College of Physicians
11 St Andrews Place
London NW1 4LE
℡01992 638865

www.bsrm.co.uk

Price: £16.00
Recommended Citation
British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine. Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation – Report of a Working
Party (Chair: Neumann, V) British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine, London 2004.

ISBN: 0-9540879-4-1
 Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Membership of the working party

Chair: Dr Vera Neumann

Members: Professor Howard Bird
Mr Jiri Chand
Professor Paul Dieppe
Dr Andrew Frank
Mrs Anthea Franks
Dr Jeffrey Graham
Dr Alison Hammond
Dr Lesley Hordon
Mr Patrick Mulligan
Dr Christian Murray-Leslie
Mrs Ceri Sedgeley
Professor Alan Tennant
Reverend Graham Trice
Professor Lynne Turner-Stokes
Dr Paul Watson

Acknowledgements

A publication such as this can only be achieved by teamwork. The BSRM would like to
acknowledge the immense commitment from the members of the working party who contributed
to this document. However they would not have been able to achieve this task without the patient
and repeated assistance from members of a wider group including:

Mrs Ailsa Bosworth, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society

Professor M Anne Chamberlain, University of Leeds
Dr Philip Conaghan, University of Leeds
Dr Kryszia Dziedzie, Dr Paul Creamer, Ms Sarah Ryan, Dr Robert Field, members of the
British Health Professionals in Rheumatology Committee
Ms Sophie Edwards, Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance
Mrs Candy McCabe, British Society for Rheumatology
Mrs Elizabeth Whiteman, Derby Regional Mobility Centre
Drs R A Williams, MR Regan, GD Summers, LJ Badcock, S O’Reilly; Derbyshire Royal
Infirmary
Other recent publications of the British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine
include:

From Surgical Appliances to Orthotics: Towards an Effective Service’

(1999)
price: £7.00

‘The effectiveness of rehabilitation: a critical review of the evidence’

Supplement to Volume 13, Number 1 1999 of Clinical Rehabilitation
Price: £6.00

‘Electronic Assistive Technology’

(2000)
price: £9.50

Prescribing a Lower Limb Prosthesis (CD format)

(2001)
price: £10 .00

Clinical Governance in Rehabilitation Medicine: the state of the art in 2002

Supplement 1 to Volume 16 of Clinical Rehabilitation
(2002)
price: £9.00

Amputee and Prosthetic Rehabilitation – Standards and Guidelines (2nd Edition)

(2003)
price: £12.00

Vocational Rehabilitation – the way forward (2nd Edition)

(2003)
price: £20.00

Rehabilitation following acquired brain injury – National clinical guidelines

Published jointly by BSRM and Royal College of Physicians
(2003)
price £16.00 from the Royal College of Physicians

Specialised Wheelchair Seating. National Clinical Guidelines

(2004)
price: £9.00
 Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Summary of findings and recommendations 1

Main findings – General 1
Main findings – specific 1
Main recommendations – general 3
Specific recommendations 3
The future? 5
Service Design for Musculoskeletal rehabilitation 6
2. Introduction and scope 7
Introduction 7
Scope 7
3. Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders 9
Summary 9
Introduction 9
Osteoarthritis 9
Spinal pain 10
Rheumatoid Arthritis 10
Other Musculoskeletal problems 12
Osteoporosis 12
Co-morbidity 13
Socio-economic burden 13
References 13
4. Inflammatory Arthritis 17
Summary 17
Introduction 17
Impact of Rheumatoid Arthritis 17
Management 18
Drug Therapy 18
Patient Education and Self-Management 19
Occupational Therapy 20
References 24
5. Osteoarthritis 29
Summary 29
Introduction 29
The Community burden of osteoarthritis 29
Prevention 30
Treatment 30
Exercise and other physical therapy for mild to moderate osteoarthritis 30
Aids and appliances for mild to moderate osteoarthritis 31
Orthopaedic surgery referral for severe osteoarthritis, unresponsive to the above interventions 31
Services for people with osteoarthritis 32
References 33
6. Peri-operative and post-operative care - rehabilitation 35
Summary 35
Introduction 35
Pre-operative assessment 36
Peri-operative management 36
Post-operative management 36
References 37
7. Osteoporosis 39
Summary 39
Introduction 39
 The impact of Osteoporosis 39
Prevention of Osteoporosis 40
Targeting the individual at risk 41
Glucocorticoid Induced Osteoporosis 42
Treatment of Osteoporosis 43
Recommendations 43
Vitamin D deficiency and osteomalacia 44
Vitamin D deficiency in the elderly 44
Vitamin D deficiency in people of South Asian origin 44
Prevention of vitamin D deficiency and osteomalacia 45
Recommendations 45
References 46
8. Regional problems 49
Summary 49
Low back pain 49
Intractable back pain 52
Neck pain 54
The Shoulder 55
References 57
9. Soft tissue injury 63
Summary 63
Introduction 63
Management 64
Soft tissue injuries around the ankle 65
Service limitations 66
Conclusion 66
References 68
10. Other soft tissue problems 69
Summary 69
Joint hypermobility 69
Work-related upper limb disorders 71
Musculoskeletal problems in musicians and performing artists 71
References 74
11. Fibromyalgia and complex regional pain disorders 77
Summary 77
Complex regional pain syndrome 77
Fibromyalgia 80
References 81
12. Environmental access 83
Summary 83
Introduction 83
Sources of information and advice 84
Evaluation of equipment and services 84
Organisation of services providing equipment for mobility and environmental access 84
Financial help/concessions 85
Provision of mobility aids and simple housing adaptations 85
Supplying more expensive equipment and major structural adaptations/modifications 85
Wheelchairs 86
Independent private car mobility (drivers and passengers) 86
Use of public transport, community transport and taxis 87
Access in public places 87
Access for employment 88
References 88
13. APPENDICES 91
Appendix 1 91
Membership of the Working Party 91
Appendix 2 93
Useful sources of information 93
Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Summary of findings and recommendations

1. Summary of findings and recommendations

Main findings – General

1.1 Musculoskeletal disorders (MSKD) are common and their consequences such that half of all
disability in the UK can be attributed to their presence. The resulting economic burden is
considerable and rising as the population ages. However, relatively little attention is focussed on
common MSKD such as osteoarthritis and their consequences. Instead, there is a tendency to
regard the resultant disability as an inevitable consequence of ageing for which little can be done.
1.2 Services for those with MSKD conditions are poorly planned. Currently patients with similar
Musculoskeletal problems are referred to a range of different hospital services including
orthopaedic, pain, rheumatology and therapy services These services may use several different
approaches to manage the same clinical problem.
1.3 Services for those with MSKD remain too focused within secondary care and have not kept pace
with improvements in community-based rehabilitation. However, both hospital and community
services are poorly developed for those with severe disabling MSKD.
1.4 Multidisciplinary teamwork is a cardinal feature of the management of complex Musculoskeletal
disability. These teams may embrace specialist nurses and therapists but need both psychological
and medical support.

Main findings – specific

Inflammatory arthritis

1.5 Despite the introduction of more effective and better tolerated disease modifying agents for the
inflammatory arthritides, these diseases, particularly rheumatoid arthritis (RA), remain major
causes of disability and loss of independence.

Osteoarthritis

1.6 Osteoarthritis (OA) is extremely common, and the major cause of pain, physical disability and
restricted activities and participation amongst older people. Despite this, access to appropriate
interventions such as exercise programmes and provision of simple aids and appliances is patchy.

Joint replacement surgery

1.7 Although joint replacement surgery has revolutionised the lives of many arthritis sufferers, the
potential benefits are often constrained by a failure to recognise the effect that such surgery will
have on adjacent joints. For example, the strains subjected to upper limbs if these are required to
withstand additional loading following lower limb surgery. Discharge from hospital may also be
needlessly delayed because a transient increase in dependence has not been anticipated and
planned for.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 1

Summary of findings and recommendations Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Osteoporosis

1.8 Patients with disabling MSKD are at increased risk of osteoporosis. Reduced mobility is a risk
factor for many. Those with inflammatory arthritis or polymyalgia rheumatica may also be taking
glucocorticoids.
1.9 There are inadequate facilities for bone densitometry to screen high-risk groups such as those on
steroids.

Regional problems and spinal pain

1.10 Spinal problems are a major cause of pain, disability and loss of independence world-wide with
major economic implications for western economies. Disabling spinal pain, however, appears to be
a feature of caring societies. Pain, which cannot be managed in primary care, is often complicated
by physical and psychosocial comorbidity.

Shoulder problems

1.11 Shoulder problems account for 5% of GP consultations. The associated pain and disability due to
‘inability to reach’ are frequently underestimated.

Soft tissue problems

1.12 Soft tissue problems may also arise in those with joint hypermobility and those who place
excessive and/or repetitive mechanical demands on their joints through work or leisure activities.
Professional sportsmen and women and musicians are at particular risk of the latter, and indeed
may have self-selected for these professions because they are unusually flexible. Those subjecting
their limbs to repetitive mechanical loading eg in employment involving repetitive tasks, are an
additional group at risk.

Other painful conditions

1.13 Both fibromyalgia and complex regional pain disorder (CRPS) are poorly defined conditions often
characterised by intense pain resulting in referral to the secondary sector. They can have a huge
impact on functional independence and lifestyle. Currently services are patchy for both conditions
and management very variable.

Environmental access

1.14 Poor environmental access in those with MSKD increases vulnerability to a range of other
problems:
injuries through falls
delayed hospital discharge
difficulties returning to work, etc.
1.15 Legislation has acted as a spur to change and, for example, public transport and buildings are
gradually becoming more accessible to those with mobility problems. However, as indicated in
the Audit Commission report ‘Better Equipped’, statutory providers of relevant equipment such as
wheelchairs are usually under-resourced, given low priority and often poorly managed. There are
also large regional variations in provision. Information about relevant benefits is complex and
often difficult to follow, and those who develop mobility problems over 65 years are specifically
excluded from certain benefits (the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance).

Page 2 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Summary of findings and recommendations

Main recommendations – general

1.16 Commissioners of services and local providers should meet to review the overall provision of
services for those with MSKD and how they can be provided most cost-effectively. Such reviews
will need to focus specifically on the major causes of disability and lost participation eg:
osteoarthritis
osteoporosis
pre and peri-operative care for those needing elective surgery and postoperative rehabilitation
rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory conditions
soft tissue injuries and chronic disorders
spinal pain.

Specific recommendations

Osteoarthritis

1.17 Patient education regarding weight reduction and exercise; and the provision of appropriate
simple orthoses, aids and appliances may do much to alleviate distress and disability and systems
should be in place to ensure all have access to these.
1.18 Joint replacement is an important option for the few people with the most severe forms of OA. As
part of their ‘overall strategy for the provision of Musculoskeletal services’, localities should
develop consensus with local stakeholders (including patients), on the indications for referral for
primary joint replacement surgery.

Rheumatoid arthritis

1.19 Impact on function, self-efficacy, physical and psychological status and pain should be lessened
by a co-ordinated management programme including screening for those at greatest risk of loss of
independence and/or employment.
1.20 Rehabilitation services should then be targeted at these groups and include patient education, joint
protection training, exercise therapy, and appropriate provision of orthoses, mobility aids and
environmental adaptations. Psychological interventions should also be available. Intensive co-
ordinated in or day patient rehabilitation should be available for people with active or severe RA.

Joint replacement surgery

1.21 A holistic approach is needed to address the complex issues regarding pre-operative care through
to post-operative rehabilitation. They should include a pre-operative assessment, and adequate
provision of peri-operative and post-operative therapy. With current trends in sub-specialisation,
orthopaedic correction for inflammatory polyarthritis can involve four or five different surgeons.
Hence, there is a role for a physician, either rehabilitationist or rheumatologist, to co-ordinate
overall management.
1.22 Ideally surgery on individuals with inflammatory joint disease should be based from a
rheumatology ward to minimise disruption to disease management and to optimise post-operative
rehabilitation.

Osteoporosis

1.23 Adequate bone densitometry should be provided to ensure the screening of all high-risk groups.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 3

Summary of findings and recommendations Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

1.24 Osteoporosis and fracture services should work together to ensure high risk groups presenting
with fractures are appropriately screened and osteoporosis treatment initiated when indicated.
1.25 Other secondary health problems associated with poor mobility such as thrombo-embolic disease
and pressure sores need to be considered and appropriate preventative strategies introduced. A
combination of poor mobility and cultural factors in South Asian women may also make this
population particularly vulnerable to osteomalacia and increased risk of fractures.

Regional problems and spinal pain

1.26 Patients with ‘red flags’ denoting risk of serious underlying pathology should be given prompt
access to appropriate investigations.
1.27 Orthopaedic, pain, rehabilitation (therapy) and rheumatology services within a locality should
work together to facilitate appropriate triage into relevant services for those not managed in
primary care.
1.28 Those with acute spinal pain need adequate pain relief and advice to keep as active as possible.
For those with subacute or chronic pain, rehabilitation should include postural re-education, a
graded exercise programme, and access to psychological interventions including cognitive
behavioural therapy and vocational rehabilitation.

Shoulder problems

1.29 Patients with complete rotator cuff tears or other significant underlying (rheumatological or
neurological) problems need referral for investigation and/or surgery. There is little evidence to
guide choice of treatment for the remainder. Some 40-50% have persistent pain and disability. In
particular, aspects of personal care may be hampered. These aspects require early recognition and
intervention, if necessary with aids as well as home and/or workplace adaptations.
1.30 Commonest sites of soft tissue injury are the ankle (5,000 per day in UK), and neck (nearly 700
per day). Whilst spontaneous recovery is to be expected in the majority of cases, a minority will
have persistent or recurrent problems leading to pain and disability often affecting work and
lifestyle.
1.31 After initial triage to identify those who may require immobilisation or surgical repair, PRICE
(protection, rest, ice, compression, and elevation) should be used for the first 72 hours to alleviate
early inflammation. This needs to be followed by a carefully co-ordinated programme of
rehabilitation, which encourages mobilisation and addresses risk factors (eg vulnerability to falls
in the elderly), thus reducing the likelihood of chronicity.

Soft tissue problems

1.32 As well as providing symptom relief, physiotherapy (and in some cases orthoses to stabilise
unstable joints), the role of rehabilitation is to identify trigger situations and develop strategies to
alter/reduce mechanical demands. This will usually involve task observation. Psychological
factors and concerns, which might impede recovery eg impact on income, will also need to be
considered.

Other painful conditions

1.33 In both fibromyalgia and CRPS, the severity of the disabling pain needs to be acknowledged and
factors likely to interfere with symptom resolution eg compensation claims for prior injuries in
CRPS, need to be identified and addressed.
1.34 In CRPS, strategies to alleviate pain are seldom effective long-term, but the use of local
treatments eg regional nerve blocks, protective and/or off-loading orthoses, may facilitate

Page 4 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Summary of findings and recommendations

commencing rehabilitation. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) combined with rehabilitation to

promote independence and return to normal lifestyle are the mainstays of treatment.
1.35 For fibromyalgia, initial management should include patient education supplemented by
physiotherapy, particularly graded aerobic exercise programmes, but CBT again plays a crucial
role.
1.36 Local agreement needs to be reached about appropriate care pathways for these patients. These
are conditions where success is probably more dependent on the interest and commitment of
treating clinicians than their professional background and speciality. Pain management requires a
multidisciplinary team using biopsychosocial models of care.

Environmental access factors

1.37 Rehabilitation services have a responsibility to ensure that those who require equipment and/or
environmental adaptations to facilitate environmental access receive appropriate advice and
provision. Disabled Living Centres and a number of voluntary organisations are useful sources of
information.
1.38 Those with deteriorating conditions eg severe disabling RA, need regular review to ensure
adequate community support for their changing needs. Assistive technology (powered
wheelchairs or environmental control units) may greatly facilitate independence and quality of life
for those needing them.

The future?

1.39 The impact of MSKD on lifestyle cannot be lessened by the introduction of new medicines and
surgical techniques alone. Developments also need to focus on the following areas:
Public health interventions to reduce the future risks of developing MSKD
(eg obesity, occupational factors).
Better understanding of the risk factors for longer-term disability with clear routes for early the
early assessment and intervention for those with severe progressive conditions or severe pain in
particular.
Rigorous evaluation of rehabilitation interventions, such that resources can be focused on
giving the most effective treatments to those who will derive the most benefit.
Better training for all clinicians working in this area. Training programmes should be
developed via close collaboration between all the relevant professional groups and specialities.
Better use of information systems and technologies and better design of public buildings and
private housing to promote independence and self-respect.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 5

Summary of findings and recommendations Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Figure 1

Service Design for Musculoskeletal rehabilitation

Clinical Triage

Information to patient
(information leaflets from support groups where
relevant)

Likely to resolve?
Pain relief and mobilise

Clinically urgent/ Risk of chronicity/ Risk of dependence/

serious pathology? recurrence unemployment

Rheumatology/orthopaedic/ Detailed assessment of risk Assessment of equipment and

rehabilitation specialist clinical factors (eg hypermobility, care needs, vocational
assessment vulnerability to falls, assessment, benefits advice
occupation, psychological)

Specialist intervention eg
medical/therapy/orthotic. Refer Multidisciplinary intervention Environmental access and
for joint replacement surgery if including physiotherapy, equipment provision
meets criteria and address peri- education, psychological home and work-place
operative rehabilitation needs approaches modifications

Screen for secondary health problems in those with

poor mobility eg osteoporosis, pressure sores,
contractures. Introduce prevention strategy Agreed review process

Agreed care pathway for management of chronic

pain/intractable problems

Page 6 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Introduction and scope

2. Introduction and scope

Introduction

2.1 Many people experience painful Musculoskeletal (MSK) episodes that interrupt work or leisure
activities. Fortunately most such episodes are brief. However in a significant proportion of the
population, such problems are sufficiently severe, disabling and persistent to lead to loss of
employment, long term pain and dependence. Musculoskeletal problems are the most prevalent
cause of long-term disability in the United Kingdom (UK).
2.2 The British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine (BSRM) represents doctors committed to
supporting people with physical disabilities in all aspects of their life and work.
2.3 Traditionally in the UK, services for Musculoskeletal disorders (MSKD) are under the umbrella of
Rheumatology and Orthopaedic departments. This differs from Europe, North America and
Australasia, where Rehabilitation specialists (often termed ‘physiatrists’ or ‘physical medicine
specialists’) are closely involved in the MSK care pathway. There is some concern that the
disabling aspects of MSKD are less well dealt with by the UK model. Consequently the BSRM has
opted to explore this area of rehabilitation.
2.4 This document has been produced by a working party co-ordinated and financially supported by
the BSRM with the aim of:
providing guidance to health professionals managing MSK problems
encouraging the development of appropriate and appropriately linked services for those
affected by MSKD.
2.5 The working party has been derived from:
professional bodies involved in addressing such problems
representatives of patient support groups and service users.
2.6 The names and affiliations of working party members are listed in Appendix 1. A Department of
Health observer was in attendance.
2.7 Many documents and articles have been written on the management of MSKD. Perhaps this
reflects the paucity of clear evidence for the best course of action to deal with many such
problems. This document cannot hope to fully resolve this issue. However, where robust
evidence for efficacy and cost effectiveness is available, this has been indicated. Where evidence
is less robust, but where commonsense and a consensus view indicates a best course of action, this
too has been indicated. In many instances, working party members have drawn on expertise from
elsewhere before reaching such a consensus. (These additional sources are acknowledged at the
end of this report). Finally, where no clear guidance can be given this has been stated.
2.8 The working party regards the latter as an important function for this document; hopefully it will
both encourage the targeting of inevitably limited resources to efficacious treatments, and act as a
spur to further research and more rigorous evaluation of 'unproven' remedies.

Scope

2.9 This document is not a comprehensive review of MSK diagnoses and their medical management
nor does it provide a comprehensive service review. Instead the approach is problem orientated,
and certain clinical conditions are used to illustrate how particular difficulties affecting

BSRM Working Party Report Page 7

Introduction and scope Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

independence and lifestyle can be tackled (or prevented from developing) even when the
underlying MSKD cannot be eradicated. The document considers interactions between medical
and surgical interventions addressing impairments, interventions (often physical) to maintain
health and reduce disability and interventions (often both environmental and psychosocial) to
allow maximal participation in society.
2.10 This report highlights key components of service structure and discusses how best to integrate
these components. Potential barriers to an integrated service and advice on how to overcome these
are discussed.
2.11 Service users have been asked to comment on the whole report but, in particular on service access
and how to make it easier for users to find their way around the service maze. They have also
contributed useful information sources.
2.12 Finally, this report discusses what an ideal service should comprise. This has been strongly
influenced by users' views on the present shortfalls as well as highlighting what we regard as
achievable targets.
2.13 The BSRM plans to review and update this report (at three-yearly intervals) and hopes that
subsequent modifications may demonstrate that some of these 'achievable targets' have been
reached and new goals can be set.

Page 8 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders

3. Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders

Summary

3.1 Musculoskeletal disorders (MSKD) and their consequences are common, such that half of all
disability in the UK can be attributed to their presence. Impact on participation is variable, but can
be substantial, as in the case of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The economic burden of MSKD is
considerable and rising. If the changing demographic profile of the population is also taken into
consideration, in particular the growth in numbers of the very elderly in western societies, and
ageing of the population in developing countries, then the consequences of MSKD will present a
formidable challenge to our society, not only during this current Bone and Joint Decade of 2000-
2010, but well beyond.

Introduction

3.2 Approximately one-in-six of the adult population in the United Kingdom (UK) reports long-
standing MSK condition1. The consequences of any disease or injury can be best understood
through the International Classification of Impairment, Functioning and Health2. The disease or
injury may give rise to an impairment of body structure or function. These may then give rise to
limitations in activities (Disability), and restriction in participation (Handicap). The latter may be
mediated by environmental or personal factors. For those with MSKD, approximately half will
have some form of activity limitation, and one-quarter will experience participation restriction3.
Viewed from a different perspective, almost half (46%) of all activity limitation in the UK is
attributable to MSKDs4.
3.3 The epidemiological literature on MSKD can be grouped into those population studies that provide
prevalence estimates and clinical epidemiological studies that provide, for example, morbidity
proportions among patients with a given MSKD. Table 3.1 presents these data in the form of
estimates, where available, for incidence and prevalence, and for consequent impairments, activity
limitations and participation restriction.
3.4 In a population study in northern England, back pain was the most commonly reported symptom in
those aged under 65 years, and knee pain in those aged 65 years and over5. In women, the
prevalence of MSK pain increased with age up to the age of 75 years, and then reached a plateau.
In men, the prevalence was similar in all age groups over 45 years. Ethnic minority groups have
been found to have a considerably higher crude prevalence of ‘pain in most joints’ compared to the
white population6. However, disability prevalence was not significantly different. Social
deprivation was also found to be linked to morbidity, particularly so with back pain5.

Osteoarthritis

3.5 Much of the activity limitation in the population can be attributed to osteoarthritis (OA) and low
back pain. Generalised OA is largely a condition found in older people. Onset of the common form
of ‘primary’ OA peaks in the sixth and seventh decades7. While it should be noted that even by 40
years of age 10-20% of people have evidence of severe radiographic disease of their hands or
feet8,9, such evidence of underlying disease does not generally translate into manifest symptoms10.
Incidence has been reported at 26 per 1000, with peak incidence at 75-84 years11. Despite the
common nature of the disease, relatively few major studies of prevalence have been undertaken.
The Royal College of General Practitioners survey of consultations found a consultation-based

BSRM Working Party Report Page 9

Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

prevalence of OA as 47 per 1000 General Practitioner consultations12, but these figures are lower
than population surveys as many people with symptomatic OA do not consult11.
3.6 The recent epidemiological evidence for OA also comes in the form of joint-specific prevalence
estimates. Hand OA has been reported in 62 per 1000 and symptomatic knee OA at 102 per
100013. The potential need for knee arthroplasty, which will largely be attributable to OA, has been
reported at 20 per 1000 aged 55 years and over14. Most recently a study in England, using a New
Zealand Score15 with a cut-off point of 55, estimated a population prevalence of knee disease
requiring total joint replacement of 27.4 joints per 1000 aged 35 years and over16. This estimate
excluded those who indicated that they did not wish to undergo surgery, a factor that has been
shown to considerably reduce the actual level of demand17. Estimates of hip disease, or pain and
disability of sufficient severity to be considered for arthroplasty range from 13.5 per 1000 aged 55
years and over, to 15.2 per 1000 aged 35-85 years18, 19. The estimated rate for females is about
twice that of males. Non-ambulant adults with cerebral palsy also seem particularly vulnerable;
prevalence of hip pain in this population has been estimated at 47.2%20.
3.7 A general health survey from a mixed urban rural primary care practice reported an 11.7%
prevalence of unilateral shoulder pain21. Over half of those with shoulder pain are likely to have
persistent problems three years later22.
3.8 The majority of those with OA will only experience mild or moderate disability. However, the
prevalence is sufficiently high such that, in the first UK national survey of disability, published
some 30 years ago, the prevalence of people living in the community with severe disability
associated with OA was similar to those from a stroke23.

Spinal pain

3.9 Low back pain has an annual incidence in the adult population of between 10-15%: point-
prevalence ranges between 15-30%; period prevalence between 25-42%; and lifetime prevalence
between 49-70%24. This is higher than the 47 per 1000 reported in a study in Bradford25 and
characterises the variability of evidence, often attributed to different case ascertainment
procedures. The natural history of non-specific low back pain is usually relapsing and remitting.
The average time to functional recovery is seven days; to symptom recovery seven weeks, but
seven in ten patients will experience a recurrence within about seven months26, 27. Consultation
with primary care is driven by different factors at each stage. Consultation for episodes lasting less
than two weeks are driven by pain; over two weeks by disability, and over three months by
depression28.

Rheumatoid Arthritis

3.10 Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) incidence rates are thought to be in decline. A population survey in
2002 found 0.35 per 1000, although with a significant difference between males and females, 0.27
per 1000 and 0.56 per 1000 respectively11. A recent population study in Norfolk found a
prevalence of 8 per 1000. However, another study in Manchester found the prevalence of only 3
per 1000 amongst Afro-Caribbeans29.
3.11 Though much less common than OA and spinal pain, by comparison, RA can have considerable
impact upon participation. In a cohort of 160 patients who were working at the time of onset of
RA, 14.4% had stopped working on health grounds within 12 months; 26.3% within two years,
and 41.6% within 9 years30. In another 10 year follow-up study, 19% of the cohort had undergone
at least one large joint replacement31.

Page 10 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders

Table 3.1

Prevalence of disease or symptom, impairment, activity limitation and participation

restriction associated with Musculoskeletal disorders. Expressed as rates per 100,000
amongst adults aged 16 years and over, unless otherwise indicated.

Condition/Symptom/ Incidence Prevalence Impairment Activity Participation

Impairment (Annual) Limitation Restriction

DIAGNOSIS

Inflammatory joint disease 115

Rheumatoid arthritis 40 800 320 320
Reactive arthritis 28
Juvenile arthritis * 7 15
Osteoarthritis 2,600 20,000 3000
Back pain 4700 39,000 17,800 2500
Anylosing spondylitis 7 40
Systemic lupus 4 50
Erythematosus
Psoriatic arthritis 8
Fibromyalgia 2000 600
Osteoporosis 4.1**
Major trauma 139 37
(ISS 16+)****
SITE-SPECIFIC

Hand Osteoarthritis 6200

Shoulder pain 11,700
Hip fracture 14
Knee problems*** 10,200 2040
Hip problems*** 1350

See text for source of each individual estimate.

Proportionate levels of impairment, activity limitation and participation restriction are converted to
prevalence estimates for comparability.
* Under 16
** aged 20-44
*** consideration for arthroplasty
**** all ages

BSRM Working Party Report Page 11

Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Other Musculoskeletal problems

3.12 There are many other disorders that can be grouped under the heading of MSKD, the more
common of which are shown in Table 3.1. The pattern of impact on impairment, activity limitation
and participation restriction is variable. For example, in a study of 175 patients with Ankylosing
Spondylitis (AS) in the United States of America (USA), the most prevalent concerns were
stiffness (90.2%), pain (83.1%), fatigue (62,4%) and poor sleep (54.1%)32. Older age and smoking
were found to be associated with more rapid progression of the disease, while frequent back
exercises and good social support were associated with improvement in disability over time33. In
contrast to RA, work disability appears to be minimal, with rates from 3% at 18 years duration34.
3.13 Work-related upper limb disorders (WRULD) are common. Amongst physical therapists, the
lifetime prevalence of WRULD has been reported at 91%, with one in six moving within, or
leaving the profession as a result35. One fifth of responders in a survey of newspaper employees
reported moderate or worse upper limb pain recurring at least monthly or lasting more than a week
over the previous year36. A relationship exists between performance at work and the occurrence of
neck and upper limb MSKDs37.
3.14 Fibromyalgia is a common form of non-articular rheumatism that is associated with chronic
generalised MSK pain and fatigue affecting approximately 3% of the adult population38, 13. There
is a 3:1 female to male ratio with prevalence rising up to 8% amongst females aged 55-64, and
declining thereafter39. High rates of work disability have been reported, (up to 30%), suggesting
considerable impact on participation40.
3.15 Soft tissue rheumatism manifests itself in many other forms, including painful back, painful
restricted shoulder syndrome and epicondylitis and prevalence in adults tends to be high for these,
at about 22%, 16% and 7% respectively41. Soft tissue rheumatism, including fibromyalgia, can
account for up to 25% of referrals to rheumatologists. At the present time little accurate
epidemiology is available for soft tissue rheumatism, and it has been argued that a better term for
this may be regional and widespread pain disorders42.
3.16 A link has been observed between soft tissue rheumatism and hypermobility. Generally females
display higher mobility than males, and there is a general decrease by age43, 44. However, there is a
continuum of joint mobility in the population with a Gaussian distribution and the prevalence of
hypermobility depends on what cut-off point in a scoring system is used to define ‘abnormal’. As
discussed later, (see Chapter 10) its impact on activity limitation and participation is often more
dependent on which joints are affected, and how severely, rather than the overall number of joints
with hypermobility.

Osteoporosis

3.17 Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterised by reduced bone mass and a change in the
microarchitecture of the bone tissue45. Without symptoms, its presence is assessed through Bone
Mineral Density (BMD) and its morbidity is expressed through fractures. Fractures are not usually
manifest until bone mass is 30%-40% below normal values7. The lifetime risk of osteoporosis
related fractures of the spine (symptomatic), hip and distal radius, together, has been reported at
40% for white women and 13% for white men aged 50 years and over in the USA46. The lifetime
risk for osteoporosis-related fractures in Europe has been estimated at 14% and 3% for hip, female
and male respectively; 11% and 2% for spine, and 13% and 2% for wrist47.

Page 12 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders

Co-morbidity

3.18 Co-morbidity amongst the adult population with MSKDs can be very high. One study reported
that in a population disabled by rheumatic disorders, 30% reported more than one rheumatic
condition, and 63% reported non-rheumatic co-morbidity3. Another study found that 27% of
patients with RA had a least one chronic coexisting disease48. Significantly elevated odds-ratios
have been found for functional decline with the presence of comorbid conditions such as diabetes
[OR 1.26 (CI 1.02-1.57)]; hypertension [OR 1.29 (1.04-1.60)], lung disease [OR 1.52 (1.13-2.06)]
and psychiatric disorders [OR 1.54 (1.04-2.29)]49.

Socio-economic burden

3.19 The economic burden of MSKDs is high, typically accounting for somewhere between 1-2% of
the Gross Domestic Product of western countries49, 50. In some cases, this reflects the specific
impact of MSKDs on ability to work. For example, WRULD were responsible for eleven million
working days lost in the UK in 199551. Moreover, arthritis can exert very long-term effects on
disability, reducing the disability-free life-expectancy by 8.8 years for females and 6.5 years for
males52.
3.20 The cost of RA in England has been estimated at £1.25 billion in 1992, 52% of which represented
production loss caused by RA disability53. Most recently, in the USA, the average costs per patient
were $10,419, with 30% being indirect costs. The level of disability (as expressed through the
HAQ score), inability to perform household tasks, and permanently disabled from work were all
predictors of high costs54.
3.21 It has also been found that the economic costs of back pain are equivalent to heart disease or
diabetes but, interestingly, a small proportion of low back pain patients account for a high
proportion of costs55. Of considerable concern is that the costs of rheumatic disease are substantial
and rising. The costs of RA alone have recently been estimated at 1% of GNP49.

References
1. Office for National Statistics. Living in Britain: results from the 1998 General Household
Survey. London: The Stationery Office, 1998.
2. World Health Organisation. International Classification of Impairments, Functioning and
Health. Geneva: WHO, 2001.
3. Badley EM, Tennant A. Disablement associated with rheumatic disorders in a British
population: problems with activities of daily living and level of support. Brit J Rheum 1993;
32:601-608.
4. Martin J, Meltzer H, Elliot D. The prevalence of disability among adults. OPCS surveys of
Disability in Great Britain. Report 1. OPCS Social Survey Division. HMSO: London, 1988.
5. Urwin M, Symmons D, Allison T, Brammah T, Busby H, Roxby M, Simmons A. Estimating
the burden of Musculoskeletal disorders in the community: the comparative prevalence of
symptoms at different anatomical sites, and the relation to social deprivation. Ann Rheum Dis
1998; 57(11):649-55.
6. Allison TR, Symmons DPM, Brammah T, et al. Musculoskeletal pain is more generalised
among people with ethnic minorities than among white people in Greater Manchester. Ann Rheum
Dis 2002; 61:151-156.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 13

Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

7. Klippel JH, Dieppe PA, Ferri FF. Primary Care Rheumatology. London: Mosby, 1999.
8. Kellgren JH. Osteoarthrosis in patients and populations. BMJ 1961; 278:1-6.
9. Cooper C. Osteoarthritis Epidemiology. In: Klippel JH, Dieppe PA (eds). Rheumatology. St
Luis: Mosby, 1994.
10. Lawrence JS, Bremner JM, Bier F. Osteo-arthrosis. Prevalence in the population and
relationship between symptoms and x-ray changes. Ann Rheum Dis 1966; 25:1-24.
11. Symmonds D, Asten P, McNally R, Webb R. Healthcare needs assessment for musculoskeletal
diseases. Manchester: ARC Epidemiology Unit, 2002.
12. McCormick A, Fleming D, Charlton J. Morbidity statistics from General Practice: Forth
national study 1991-1992. London:HMSO, 1995.
13. Carmona L, Ballina J, Gabriel R, Laffon A, The burden of musculoskeletal diseases in the
general population of Spain results from a national survey. Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60:1040-1045.
14. Tennant A, Fear J, Pickering A, Hillman M, Cutts A, Chamberlain MA. Prevalence of knee
problems in the population aged 55 years and over: identifying the need for knee arthroplasty.
BMJ 1995; 310:1291-1293.
15. Hadorn DC, Holmes AC. The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part I: Overview. BMJ
1997; 314:131-134.
16. Jüni P, Dieppe P, Donavan J, et al. Population requirement for primary knee replacement
surgery: a cross-sectional study. Rheumatology 2003: 42:516-521.
17. Hawker GA, Wright JG, Coyte PC, et al. Determining the need for hip and knee arthroplasty;
the role of clinical severity and patients’ preferences. Med Care 2001; 39:206-216.
18. Fear J, Hillman M, Chamberlain MA. Tennant A. Prevalence of hip problems in the
population aged 55 years and over: Access to specialist care and future demand for hip
arthroplasty. Br J Rheum 1997; 36:74-76.
19. Frankel S, Eachus J, Pearson N, et al. Population requirement for primary hip replacement: a
cross sectional study. Lancet 1999; 353:1304-1309.
20. Hodgkinson I, Jindrich ML, Duhaut P, Vadct JP, Metton G, Bacrad C. Hip pain in 234 non-
ambulatory adolescents and young adults with cerebral palsy: a cross-sectional multicentre study.
Med Child Neurol 2001; 43:806-808.
21. Badcock LJ, Lewis M, hay EM, McCarney R, Croft PR. Chronic shoulder pain in the
community: a syndrome of disability or distress? Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61:128-131.
22. Macfarlane GJ, Hunt IM, Silman AJ. Predictors of chronic shoulder pain: a population-based
prospective study. J Rheum 1998; 25:1612-1615.
23. Badley EM, Tompson RP, Wood PHN. The prevalence and severity of major disabling
conditions – a reappraisal of the government social survey on the handicapped and impaired in
Great Britain. Int J Epi 1978; 7: 145-151.
24. Andersson GBJ. Epidemiological features of low back pain. Lancet 1999; 354; 581-585.
25. Hillman M, Wright A, Rajeratnam G, Tennant A Chamberlain MA. Prevalence of low back
pain in the community: Implications for service provision in Bradford, UK. J Epidemilol Comm
Health 1996; 50: 347-352.
26. Reid S, Haugh LD, Hazard RG, Tripathi M. Occupational low back pain: recovery curves and
factors associated with disability. J Occup Rehabil 1997; 7: 1-14.
27. Taylor WJ, Helliwell PS. A rational approach to managing low back pain.. The Practitioner
2000; 244:1016-1022.

Page 14 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders

28. Waxman R, Tennant A, Helliwell P. Community survey of factors associated with consultation
for low back pain. BMJ 1998; 317:1564-1567.
29. MacGregor AJ, Riste LK, Hazes JMW, Silman AJ. Low prevalence of Rheumatoid Arthritis in
Black Caribbeans compared with Whites in inner city Manchester. Ann Rheum Dis 1994; 53:293-
297.
30. Barrett EM, Scott DGI, Wiles NJ, Symmons DPM. The impact of rheumatoid arthritis on
employment status in the early years of disease: a UK community-based study. Rheumatology
2000; 39:1403-1409.
31. Gordon P, West J, Jones H, Gibson T, A 10 year prospective follow up of patients with
rheumatoid arthritis 1986-96. J Rheumatol 2001; 28:2409-2415.
32. Ward MM. Health related quality of life in Ankylosing Spondylitis: A survey of 175 patients.
Arthritis Care and Research 1999; 12:247-255.
33. Ward MM. predictors of the progression of functional disability in patients with ankylosing
spondylitis. J Rheum 2002; 29:1420-1425.
34. Boonen A, deVet H, van der Heijde D, van der Linden S, Work status and its determinants
among patients with ankylosing spondylitis. A systematic literature review. J Rheumatol 2001;
28:1056-1062.
35. Cromie JE, Robertson VJ, Best MO. Work related musculoskeletal disorders in physical
therapists: prevalence, severity, risks and responses. Phys Ther 2000; 80:336-351.
36. Polanyi MF, Cole DC, Beaton DE, et al. Upper limb work-related musculoskeletal disorders
among newspaper employees: cross-sectional survey results. Am J Ind Med 1997; 32:620-628.
37. Buckle PW, Devereux JJ. The nature of work-related neck and upper limb musculoskeletal
disorders. Appl Ergon 2002; 33:207-217.
38. White KP, Harth M, Classification, epidemiology and natural history of fibromyalgia. Curr
pain headache rep 2001; 5:320-329.
39. White KP, Speechley M, Harth M, Ostbye. The London Fibromyalgia Epidemiology Study:
the prevalence of Fybromyalgia syndrome in London, Ontario. J Rheum 1999; 26:1570-1578.
40. Wolf F, Anderson J, Harkness D, et al. Work and disability status of persons with
fibromyalgia. J Rheum 1997; 24:1171-1178.
41. Darmawan J, Valkenburg HA, Muirden KD, Wigley RD. The prevalence of soft tissue
rheumatism. A who-ilar copcord study. Rheumatol Int 1996; 15:121-4.
42. Natvig B, Picavet HS. The epidemiology of soft tissue rheumatism. Best Pract Res Clin
Rheumatolo 2002; 16:777-793.
43. Larsson LG, Baum J, Mudholkar GS, Srivastava DK. Hypermobility: prevalence and features
in a Swedish population. Br J Rheum 1993; 32:116-119.
44. Seow CC, Chow PK, Khong KS. A study of joint mobility in a normal population. Ann Acad
Med Singapore 1999; 28:231-236.
45. Hawker GA. Epidemiology of arthritis and osteoporosis. In: Badley EM, Williams JI (eds),
Arthritis and related conditions. Continental Press: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences,
1998.
46. Riggs BL, Melton LJ. The worldwide problem of osteoporosis: insights afforded by
epidemiology. Bone 1996: 15:(suppl) 505S-511S.
47. Cooper C. Epidemiology of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis Int 1999; 2: (Suppl) S2-S8.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 15

Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

48. Kroot EJ, van Gestel AM, Swinkels HL, Albers MM, van de Putte LB, van Riel PL. Chronic
co-morbidity in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis; a descriptive study. J Rheumatol 2001,
28:1511-1517.
49. Dunlop DD, Manheim LM, Yelin EH, Song J, Chang RW. The costs of arthritis. Arthritis Care
and Research 2003; 49: 101-113.
50. Reginster JY. The prevalence and burden of arthritis. Rheumatology 2002; 41 (Suppl 1) 3-6.
51. Jones JR, Hodgson JT, Clegg TA, Elliot RC. Self-reported work related illness in 1995.
Results from a household survey. London: Health and Safety Executive, 1998.
52. Belanger A, Martel L, Berthelot JM, Wilkins R. Gender differences in disability-free life
expectancy for selected risk factors and chronic conditions in Canada. J Women Ageing 2002;
14:61-83.
53. McIntosh E. The cost of rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheum 1996; 35:781-790.
54. Lajas C, Abasolo L, Bellajdel B, et al. Costs and predictor of costs in rheumatoid arthritis: A
prevalence-based study. Arthritis Care & Research 2003; 49:64-70.
55. Maetzel A, Li L. the economic burden of low back pain: a review of studies published between
1996 and 2001. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2002; 16:23-30.

Page 16 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Inflammatory Arthritis

4. Inflammatory Arthritis

Summary

4.1 Despite the introduction of more effective and better tolerated disease modifying agents for
inflammatory arthritides, these diseases, particularly rheumatoid arthritis (RA), remain major
causes of disability and loss of independence.
4.2 Impact on function, self-efficacy, physical and psychological status and pain can be lessened by a
co-ordinated management programme including:
early referral to a Rheumatology Service
screening for ‘at risk’ factors (eg for work disability, severe psychological distress, early hand
and foot problems, early moderate or severe functional difficulty).
4.3 Rehabilitation services should then be targeted at these groups and include:
patient education using behavioural approaches
Occupational Therapy and Joint Protection training using behavioural methods
dynamic exercise therapy and hydrotherapy
orthoses and supportive footwear
psychological interventions (cognitive-behavioural therapy) - in people with poorer
psychological status.
Intensive co-ordinated in - or day patient rehabilitation - for people with active or severe RA .

Introduction

4.4 Rheumatoid Arthritis is the commonest inflammatory arthritis treated in Rheumatology

departments (up to 60% of a Consultants’ caseload). Others include ankylosing spondylitis,
psoriatic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosis and reactive arthritis. Peak age of onset for most
of these is 20-50 years. Much of this chapter relates to evidence-based practice in RA, but the
same team approach is applicable to other inflammatory arthropathies. Specific additional needs
for other conditions are addressed near the end of the chapter.

Impact of Rheumatoid Arthritis

4.5 Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is chronic, unpredictable, but usually causes persistent joint pain,
progressive joint damage (especially in the hands and feet) and long-term disability. Five years
after diagnosis, whilst 40% still have relatively normal function (13% in remission), 44% have
mild to moderate and 16% marked functional disability. In working people 15% are work disabled
at one year, 27% by five years, rising to over 50% by ten years, leading to serious financial
consequences for the person, their family and increased Social Security costs1. The impact on
ability to carry out household duties and childcare can also be huge.
4.6 In the longer term, 80% are moderately or severely disabled by 20 years. The disease can also lead
to multiple organ involvement (eg heart, liver, skin). The annual cost of treating RA in the UK is
£0.8-1.3 billion2. Most costs come from long-term care and hospital admissions, with drug
therapy (including monitoring and management of toxicity) only 15% of costs3. This is estimated

BSRM Working Party Report Page 17

Inflammatory Arthritis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

to rise by £55-75 million per annum with the increased use of new biological therapies, even
though these are applicable to only a small minority of severely ill patients (6-8%)4.
4.7 Red flags (ie high risk factors) for poorer functional outcome and morbidity are:
moderate functional disability already evident at diagnosis1,2,5
requiring hospital admission early1,2,5
poorer psychological status ie poor self-efficacy, greater helplessness, passive coping and
depression6.
4.8 Yellow flags (ie moderate risk factors) are:
younger at disease onset 7
socio-economic deprivation, possibly due to co-morbid disease, lifestyle factors (eg poorer diet,
smoking), later presentation with disease and poorer access to services7.
4.9 Two-thirds of people with RA could potentially benefit from rehabilitation services to reduce
disability. Half of those of working age could benefit from vocational rehabilitation to prevent
work disability. The authors of this report consider people with the above red and yellow flags in
particular require rehabilitation services early.

Management

Early referral to Specialist Care, Drug Therapy and Rheumatology Nurse

Practitioners

4.10 Specialist secondary care from dedicated rheumatology teams gives better outcomes in RA than
general or primary care services8. People suspected of having RA should be seen by a Consultant
Rheumatologist within 12 (preferably six) weeks of referral for diagnosis and to start Disease
Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug (DMARD) therapy. DMARDs limit joint damage, maintain
function and reduce later disability. Delaying DMARDs adversely affects functional outcome.
4.11 Sulphasalazine and methotrexate have more favourable efficacy/toxicity profiles than other
DMARDs. Within 2-4 years over 50% change to a second DMARD, as the first is no longer
effective5,9. Biologic therapies are available for those with severe disease; these markedly improve
functional ability but are expensive and provision varies considerably throughout the UK. A third
of Rheumatologists are currently unable to prescribe biologics to all applicable patients, either due
to lack of funding from Primary Care Trusts, nursing support or day unit facilities4. However, drug
therapy does not cure and rehabilitation is essential in addition.
4.12 Following medical diagnosis, Rheumatology Nurse Practitioner (RNP) follow-up is significantly
more effective than either junior doctor or Consultant care in providing patient education and
psychological support, maximizing concordance with drug therapy, referral for rehabilitation
services, and resulting improvements in health status10. RNPs are essential team members.

Drug Therapy

Analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDS)

4.13 Inflammatory arthritis is rarely controlled by analgesics or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

(NSAIDS) alone. Analgesics can be useful for ‘on demand’ dosing in combination with an
NSAID. NSAIDS relieve inflammation though frequently causing gastric side effects requiring
concomitant gastro-protective therapy. They sometimes also cause renal side effects. They can be
classified by family (of some relevance to side effects), half-life (relevant to the frequency of

Page 18 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Inflammatory Arthritis

dosing) and by pharmacological effect. The oldest are available in generic formulation. Low dose
ibuprofen is now available over the counter.
4.14 Pharmacologically, NSAIDs are divided into non-specific inhibitors of cyclooxygenase, partial
COX-2 inhibitors and selective COX-2 inhibitors (the coxibs). The more expensive highly
selective COX-2 inhibitors are claimed to have fewer gastric side effects and cause less renal
damage so may have a place in the elderly or patients who have previously suffered severe
gastrointestinal problems. With time, however, more side effects may yet emerge with these
newer drugs.

Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs)

4.15 In the last ten years, early introduction of DMARD treatment has become the norm.
Sulphasalazine and methotrexate are the drugs of first choice, supplanting earlier compounds such
as injectable gold, penicillamine, anti-malarials and azathioprine. Less commonly used drugs
include cyclosporin and minocycline. The average period on a DMARD before side effects occur
or before disease control is lost is only two-three years. The use of several drugs is often required,
normally one at a time. In the last few years, new DMARDs have been introduced. Leflunomide
is a pyrimidine antagonist (raising the potential of combined potent use with methotrexate, which
is a purine antagonist). The cost of such therapy is around £700/year in the average patient, which
is significantly more than any of the earlier drugs.
4.16 Drugs are normally titrated against acute phase reactants, sometimes against radiological
progression. If a single drug fails to help, drugs can be used in combination. All DMARDs carry
side effects so monitoring is required for their safe use and traditionally they are only prescribed
under hospital supervision.

Biologic therapies

4.17 Anti-TNFα blockade has been shown to have significant efficacy in RA and two such biological
compounds are now available. Infliximab is given by intravenous infusion in combination with
methotrexate and etanercept is given by subcutaneous injection as a sole drug. Their respective
costs are approximately £8,500/year and £9,500/year, which has introduced a new dimension to
the cost of rheumatology care. Currently these are recommended as treatment options for people
with clinically active RA which has not responded adequately to at least two DMARDS, including
methotrexate (unless otherwise indicated)52. These must be prescribed following British Society of
Rheumatology Guidelines53. Different trusts and health authorities have reacted in different ways
with the effect that these drugs are currently rationed in many parts of the country4.

Future trends

4.18 The next five years is likely to see the introduction of biological agents blocking alternative
interleukins (eg IL-1) and the second generation of TNFα blocking drugs, with, hopefully, fewer
adverse effects than the existing preparations.

Patient Education and Self-Management

4.19 Patient education programmes improve use of self-management, disability, pain and psychological
status in the short term11,12. People who use more active coping strategies have less functional
disability long-term6. Written information from the Arthritis Research Campaign (ARC), Arthritis
Care, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (NRAS) as well as websites, book lists, and
information about local/national arthritis organisations can help consideraby13.
4.20 However, behaviourally based interventions (ie including goal-setting, contracting and feedback)
are significantly more effective in improving health status than information and/or counselling

BSRM Working Party Report Page 19

Inflammatory Arthritis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

alone11,12. Programmes should emphasise healthy lifestyle management and provide training in
exercise, joint protection, pain and fatigue management, effective communication, and include
disease and drug therapy education. Group behavioural programmes are more cost-effective than
individual education. However, only 50% of people with RA consider attending group education
useful14. Many prefer one-to-one education from health professionals and self-study
programmes14. The former are less effective - improving knowledge and patient satisfaction but
not self-efficacy, health behaviours or health status11, 15. Self-study programmes are effective when
individualised but require health professional input to support people through change16, 17.
4.21 Community based trained user-led group self-management programmes are also effective
(“Challenging Arthritis”, run by Arthritis Care18) and are currently being rolled out in the UK
Expert Patient Programme. NRAS is also establishing a national Expert Patient Programme
providing individual education and support.

Occupational Therapy

Joint protection/fatigue management

4.22 There is good evidence that, when administered as a behavioural group programme, this reduces
pain, early morning stiffness, maintains functional ability, improves grip and reduces number of
visits to a doctor for arthritis one year after education in early RA19.

Assistive devices

4.23 Assistive devices reduce pain and difficulty in activities of daily living (ADL)20,21. Provision is
patchy nationally. Many Local Authority Social Services (LASS) and NHS Occupational Therapy
(OT) departments require people to purchase small devices (eg kitchen and personal care aids) due
to budget constraints but provide larger devices and adaptations free. Others provide all devices
free. Waiting lists for OT assessment vary considerably due to staff shortages - particularly in
LASS. People on lower incomes are often unable to afford smaller devices and may not ask for
help purchasing these.

Hand Splinting

4.24 Wrist splints reduce pain, improve grip and functional ability during wear22. Resting splints reduce
pain at night22. There is no evidence as yet that splinting maintains function long-term or prevents
deformity. Staff trained in their use must correctly fit all splints, clearly instruct in their use and
regular review is recommended to ensure maximum therapeutic effect23.

Comprehensive Occupational Therapy programmes

4.25 These include ADL assessment and training, splinting, joint protection, assistive devices and
environmental modification, fatigue and pain management, counselling, patient education, work
and leisure rehabilitation.
4.26 There is good evidence OT is effective in improving functional ability in people with moderate to
severe established RA24. In early RA (< 2.5 year post diagnosis) OT leads to some increase in self-
management but no discernible effect on physical, functional or psychological status25. However,
educational-behavioural approaches, now known to be more effective11,19 were not included in this
early OT programme.
4.27 A recent systematic review concluded there is limited but encouraging evidence that
comprehensive OT has a positive effect on functional ability and pain22.

Page 20 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Inflammatory Arthritis

Exercise and Physical Therapies

4.28 Comprehensive physiotherapy (education, exercise and pain relief modalities) improves
knowledge, self-efficacy and early morning stiffness for up to one year26-28.
4.29 Aerobic and strengthening exercise. Two systematic reviews conclude this leads to significant
improvements in physical (muscle strength, aerobic capacity, endurance and function) and
psychological status (self-efficacy and well-being) and does not exacerbate disease activity29,30.
People with arthritis should be taught an effective exercise programme, of moderate (60-85% of
maximum heart rate) aerobic exercise three times per week for between 30-60 minutes
cumulatively, combined with moderate strengthening (50-80% of maximal voluntary contraction)
two to three times per week30.
4.30 ‘Exercise on Prescription’ schemes (ie free/ reduced rate exercise facilities available in leisure
centres following referral by a GP for health reasons) should also be available for people with
arthritis.
4.31 Hand exercise (provided by both Occupational Therapist and Physiotherapist (PT)). A
combination of range of motion and strength exercises is more effective than range of motion or
wax therapy alone in improving grip and pinch strength, reducing pain and maintaining hand
function26.
4.32 Hydrotherapy. There is some evidence that this helps maintain activity levels reduces the need for
hospital admissions31. However it is costly and limited in availability.
4.33 Thermotherapy: there are no significant benefits from heat and ice pack applications, cryotherapy
or faradic baths apart from short-term relief of symptoms. Paraffin wax baths combined with
exercises have beneficial short-term effects for arthritic hands26,32.
4.34 Electrical stimulation (ES) aims to improve muscle strength and endurance training in people
unable to voluntarily recruit muscles actively. However, only one small good quality study shows
ES aids grip strength and fatigue resistance in the hand33.
4.35 Low level laser therapy and acupuncture. These are beneficial in reducing pain in the short- term
but have no other effects. However trials are few and small in size34, 35.

Foot and Lower Limb Care

4.36 Podiatry provides a combination of patient education, exercise, foot joint protection, and splinting
and footwear advice. Semi-rigid foot orthoses are more effective in reducing metatarsalgia than
soft orthoses or supportive shoes alone36. Extra-depth shoes or off–the-shelf orthopaedic footwear
combined with moulded insoles decrease pain in standing, and improve walking and stair-
climbing, physical function, gait velocity, and gait stride length37,38. For those with more severe
and/or proximal problems such as knee or hind-foot mal-alignment which deteriorates on weight-
bearing, ankle-foot-orthoses (AFO’s) or knee-ankle-foot-orthoses (KAFO’s) can considerably
enhance comfort and mobility.
4.37 Multidisciplinary foot and lower limb care services (podiatry, orthotics, PT and OT) are
considered by the authors of this report to be an effective, essential mode of service delivery.

Psychological interventions

4.38 Multimodal cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT); relaxation, imagery, stress management,
cognitive coping skills, biofeedback, psychotherapeutic interventions - group and individual,
significantly improve pain and functional disability in the short but not long-term. However there
are often sustained improvements in anxiety, depression, self-efficacy and coping skills.
Interventions seem more effective with people with shorter disease duration39.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 21

Inflammatory Arthritis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

4.39 CBT is most applicable for people ‘at risk’ ie with severe pain, little social support, who feel
helpless about coping with their disease and become disabled even though seemingly having mild
to moderate disease.
4.40 A combination of Tai Chi, relaxation and stress management improves range of motion and
disability in the short-term40.

Vocational rehabilitation

4.41 The prevalence of work disability is high, job problems arise quickly and job loss can often occur
before the person is referred to hospital or started on DMARD therapy. Factors affecting work
disability are primarily work factors (eg physical demands of the job, degree of autonomy) and
employee factors (eg age, education, work motivation). Disease factors (eg disability, flare-up
frequency, degree of pain and fatigue) are less important. Work loss is common in those with
physically demanding jobs who are unable to change to lighter work and have little control over
their work pace41. There is good evidence that work rehabilitation can reduce sickness absence,
early retirement, increase productivity, continue payment of taxes and reduce state benefits
payments42.
4.42 Key strategies to maintain people in work include:
rapid communication with employers and the employee with arthritis at disease onset and
during flare-ups
openness between the two parties
job modification,
reorganising work schedules
reducing access barriers
enabling people to stay in their current workplace and changing to more appropriate duties if
necessary41.
4.43 OTs or PTs trained in ergonomics and vocational rehabilitation can assess whether there is a mis-
match between the demands of the workplace and the current physical capabilities of the
individual with arthritis, and can advise on workplace adaptation. Disability Employment Advisors
at Job Centres assist financially and practically. Vocational retraining or intensive work
rehabilitation is effective for people needing to change job or after extended sick leave42,43.
4.44 Good evidence indicates introducing a simple work problem-screening tool into rheumatology
clinics assists early identification of work problems43. Early work assessment reduces work
problems, maintains people in work and results in high levels of satisfaction from workers with
RA44.

Practical help in the home

4.45 Social work intervention can support people and their families in adjusting to living with a chronic
disease through:
counselling
family support
organising provision of home care, meals on wheels and/or day care
social housing when necessary for people with more severe disability
providing assistance with benefits available and liasing with employers.
4.46 Although the effect of social work intervention in arthritis has not been evaluated, the authors of
this report regard it as an essential component of team management, especially for people with
more severe disease.

Page 22 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Inflammatory Arthritis

Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation

4.47 Co-ordinated intensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes are important for people with
active RA or moderate-severe RA and multiple functional problems. Intensive medical treatment
and rehabilitation provided in well structured, co-ordinated day care and in-patient rehabilitation
are similarly beneficial, with day care being slightly cheaper45-47. It is likely that local geographical
and service factors influence the most effective method of providing multidisciplinary care for
those with more severe problems.

Other inflammatory arthropathies

4.48 Ankylosing spondylitis(AS) is the commonest seronegative arthritis (others include psoriatic and
reactive arthritis). It primarily affects the spine and entheses (where tendons join bones). It is
more frequent in men than women and starts in the sacroiliac joints, typically spreading up the
spine to stiffen and fix it, ultimately leading to kyphosis. The knees and ankles can also be
affected. Pain, stiffness and fatigue are major problems and 25% also have eye inflammation. The
latter need to be treated promptly to avoid visual impairment. Seventy-five per cent of people with
AS can remain in work, but this should be physically undemanding, minimize bending, lifting and
sitting and early work assessment is essential.
4.49 Management is largely similar to RA, initially with analgesics and NSAIDs, and later with
DMARDS. A daily home programme of exercise designed to stretch ligaments and strengthen
muscles to maintain mobility and good posture should be followed, accompanied by regular
aerobic exercise. A recent systematic review concluded intensive exercise programmes (eg three
weeks of PT supervised daily exercise plus thrice weekly hydrotherapy) led to short-term
improvements in spinal mobility, pain and stiffness compared to home exercise only, although this
was no different at six months48. Best practice recommends people with AS attend intensive
exercise residential programmes periodically. The National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society
(NASS) supports such programmes and has a network of local groups providing ‘out of hours’ PT-
led exercise classes. Where these are unavailable, people should have free access to appropriate
exercise facilities.
4.50 Sometimes surgery is needed, particularly if there is both lumbar spine and hip involvement. A
possible post-operative complication is stiffness and ankylosis, necessitating even more vigorous
post-operative PT than in other conditions.
4.51 Systemic lupus erythematosis (SLE) is the commonest example of inflammatory conditions of
connective tissues (others include polymyositis, dermatomyositis, systemic sclerosis). It typically
affects young women, and can affect multiple organs including skin (rashes, sun-sensitivity),
joints, kidneys, heart, lungs and the central nervous system (CNS). Early detection and aggressive
treatment with DMARDs are needed to limit organ damage. Early self-management education and
OT and PT as functional problems develop are necessary. Continued disease monitoring is vital, as
neuropsychiatric symptoms particularly must be identified early. Impaired cognitive function
(including memory loss and confusion) and frank psychosis can occur in some people and hence,
good links need to be established with psychiatric/psychological services.

Current services and their limitations

4.52 Whilst specialist rheumatology teams give better outcomes than general or primary care services8,
provision of services is patchy, especially in rural areas. Many units have insufficient OT and PT,
orthotic, podiatry and specialist rheumatology nurse practitioner (RNP) support to provide fully
co-ordinated care. Psychology support and work rehabilitation are rare. There are reducing
numbers of rheumatology beds to provide in-patient rehabilitation when this is needed.
4.53 A recent survey of members by the NRAS identified only 63% had access to a RNP, 57% to PT,
48% to OT and 39% to podiatry. This is likely to be an optimistic picture of national provision49.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 23

Inflammatory Arthritis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

4.54 It is the consensus of this working party that the increasing trend to generic community therapy
provision can deny people access to expert rheumatology patient education and rehabilitation.
Dedicated, properly funded and staffed rheumatology teams are essential - either hospital or
community based. For example, the Fife Community Rheumatology Service provides high quality,
expert rheumatology therapy at a local level. Extended role practitioners also improve co-
ordination of care50.

References

1. Young A, Dixey J, Cox N, et al. How does functional disability in early rheumatoid arthritis
(RA) affect patients and their lives? Results of 5 years of follow-up in 732 patients from the Early
RA Study (ERAS). Rheumatology 2000; 39:603-611.
2. Scott DL, Shipley M, Dawson A, Edwards S, Symmons DPM, Woolf AD. The Clinical
Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis: Strategies for Improving Clinical
Effectiveness. Br J Rheumatology 1998; 37(5):546-554.
3. Gray R, Muirie J . Needs Assessment report: Rheumatoid Arthritis in adults: gaining health
from effective treatment. NHS Scotland, 2002 (www.phis.org.uk).
4. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance (ARMA) . Anti-TNFa Survey, 2003. Available from
ARMA, 41 Eagle Street, London WC1R 4LT.
5. American College of Rheumatology Subcommittee on RA Guidelines. Guidelines for the
Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: 2002 Update. Arthritis and Rheumatism 2002; 46(2):328-
346.
6. Uhlig T, Smedstad LM, Vaglum P, Moum T, Gerard N, Kvien TK. The course of rheumatoid
arthritis and predictors of psychological, physical and radiographic outcome after 5 years of
follow-up. Rheumatology 2000 39:732-741.
7. McEntegart A, Morrison E, Capell HA et al. Effect of social deprivation on disease severity and
outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 1997; 56:410-
413.
8.Solomon DH, Bates DW, Panush RS, Katz JN . Costs, outcomes and patient satisfaction by
provider type for patients with rheumatic and Musculoskeletal conditions: a critical review of the
literature and proposed methodolical standards. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997; 127(1):52-60.
9. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: Management of early Rheumatoid Arthritis. Royal
College of Physicians of Edinburgh 2000 (www.sign.ac.uk).
10. Hill J, Bird HA, Harmer R, Wright V, Lawton C. An evaluation of the effectiveness, safety and
acceptability of a nurse practitioner in a rheumatology out-patient clinic. Br J Rheumatology
1994; 33:283-288.
11. Riemsma R, Kirwan J, Taal E, Rasker JJ. Patient education for adults with rheumatoid arthritis.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002a; (3):CD003688.
12. Superio-Cabuslay E, Ward MM, Lorig KP. Patient education interventions in osteoarthritis and
rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis comparison with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug
treatment. Arthritis Care and Research 1996; 9:292-301.
13. Rowan K, Doyle D, Griffiths I . Standards of Care: towards meeting people’s needs. In:
Arthritis getting it right: a guide for planners. British League Against Rheumatism (now ARMA)
1997. 41, Eagle Street, London WC1R 4AR.

Page 24 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Inflammatory Arthritis

14. Hammond A, Badcock L Improving education about arthritis: identifying the educational
needs of people with chronic inflammatory arthritis. Rheumatology 2000; 41: Suppl p86(217).
15. Riemsma RP, Taal E, Brus HL, Rasker JJ., Wiegman 0. Coordinated individual education
with an arthritis passport for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care and Research 1997;
10:238-249.
16. Fries JF, Carey C, McShane DJ. Patient education in arthritis: a randomised controlled trial of
a mail-delivered program. Journal of Rheumatology 1997; 24(7):1378-1383.
17. Goeppinger J, Arthur MW, Baglioni AJ. A re-examination of the effectiveness of self-care
education for persons with arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1989; 32:706-716.
18. Barlow JH, Turner AP, Wright CC. A randomised controlled study of the arthritis self-
management programme in the UK. Health Education Research 2000; 15(6):665-680.
19. Hammond A, Freeman K. One year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial of an
educational-behavioural joint protection programme for people with rheumatoid arthritis.
Rheumatology 2001; 40:1044-1051.
20. Nordenskield, U. Evaluation of assistive devices after a course of joint protection.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1994; 10(2):293-304.
21. Nordenskiold U, Grimby G, Dahlin-Ivanoff S. Questionnaire to evaluate the effects of assistive
devices and altered working methods in women with rheumatoid arthritis. Clinical Rheumatology.
1998; 17:6-16.
22. Steultjens EMJ, Dekker J, Bouter LM, Schaardenburg D, van Kuyk MH, van den Ende CHM.
Occupational Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: a systematic review. Arthritis Care and Research
2002; 47(6):672-685.
23. Medical Devices Agency. Equipped to care: the safe use of medical devices in the 21st century.
Department of Health 2000. London.
24. Helewa A, Goldsmith C, Lee P, et al. Effects of occupational therapy home service on patients
with rheumatoid arthritis. The Lancet. 1991; 337 :1453-1456.
25. Hammond A, Young A, Kidao R. A randomised controlled trial of occupational therapy for
people with early rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2004; 63:23-30.
26. Hurley M, Dziedzic K, Bearne L, Sim J, Bury T. Evidence briefing 3 In: The clinical and cost
effectiveness of physiotherapy in the management of people with common rheumatological
conditions. London: Chartered Society of Physiotherapists, 2002:13-17.
27. Bell MJ, Lineker SC, Wilkins AL, Goldsmith CH, Badley EM. A randomised controlled trial
to evaluate the efficacy of community based physical therapy in the treatment of people with
rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology 1998; 25: 231-237.
28. Lineker SC, Bell MJ, Wilkins AL, Badley EM. Improvements following short term based
physical therapy are maintained at one year in people with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.
Journal of Rheumatology 2001; 28:165-168.
29. Van den Ende CHM, Vliet Vlieland TPM, Munneke M, Hazes JMW. Dynamic exercise
therapy in rheumatoid arthritis:a systematic review. Bri J Rheumatology 1998; 37:677-687.
30. Stenstrom CH, Minor MA. Evidence for the benefit of aerobic and strengthening exercise in
rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism 2003; 49(3):428-434.
31. Stenstrom CH, Lindell B, Swanberg P. Harms-Ringdahl K, Nordemar R. Intensive dynamic
training in water for rheumatoid arthritis. Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology 1991; 20:358-
365.
32. Robinson V, Brosseau L, Casimiro Ludd et al. Thermotherapy for treating rheumatoid arthritis.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Issue 4, 2002.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 25

Inflammatory Arthritis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

33. Pelland L, Brosseau L, Casimiro L, Robinson V, Tugwell P, Wells G. Electrical stimulation for
the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003: Vol 1.
34. Casimiro L, Brosseua L, Milne S, Robinson V, Wells G, Tugwell P. Acupuncture and
electroacupuncture for the treatment of RA. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002a
Issue 4, 2002.
35. Brosseau L, Welch V, Wells G et al. Low level laser therapy (Classes I, II and III) for treating
rheumatoid arthritis (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003. Oxford: Update
Software.
36. Chalmers AC, Busby C, Govert J, Porter B, Schulzer M. Metatarsalgia and rheumatoid
arthritis--a randomized, single blind, sequential trial comparing 2 types of foot orthoses and
supportive shoes. Journal of Rheumatology 2000; 27(7):1643-7.
37. Woodburn J, Barker S, Helliwell PS. A randomized controlled trial of foot orthoses in
rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology 2002; 29(7):1377-83.
38. Egan M, Brosseau L, Farmer M. Splints/Orthoses in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis
(Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2003. Oxford: Update Software.
39. Astin JA, Beckner W, Soeken K, Hochberg MC, Berman B. Psychological Interventions for
rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Arthritis and Rheumatism.
Arthritis Care and Research 2002; 47(3):291-302.40. Van Deusen J, Harlowe D. The efficacy of
the ROM dance programme for adults with rheumatoid arthritis. American Journal of
Occupational Therapy 1987; 41:90-95.
41. Frank AO, Chamberlain MA. Keeping our patients at work: implications for the management
of those with rheumatoid arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions. Rheumatology 2001; 40:1201-
1205.
42. British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine Vocational rehabilitation: the way forward.
London: Bristish Society of Rehabilitation Medicine 2000: 1-107.
43. Gilworth G, Haigh R, Tennant A, Chamberlain MA. Do rheumatologists recognise their
patients’ work related problems? Rheumatology 2001; 40:1206-1210.
44. Barlow J, Wright C, Kroll T. Overcoming perceived barriers to employment amongst people
with arthritis. Journal of Health Psychology 2001; 6(2):205-216.
45. Vliet Vlieland TPM, Hazes. Efficacy of multidisciplinary team care programmes in
rheumatoid arthritis. Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism 1997; 27:110-122.
46. Badamgarav E, Croft JD, Hohlbauch A et al (2003). Effects of disease management programs
on functional status of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism (Arthritis Care
and Research ) 2003; 49(3):377-387.
47. Lambert CM, Hurst NP, Gorbes JF, Lochead A, Macleod M, Nuki G. Is day care equivalent to
inpatient care for active rheumatoid arthritis? Randomised controlled clinical and economic
evaluation. BMJ 1998; 316: 965-968.
48. Dagfinrud H, Hagen K Physiotherapy interventions for Ankylosing Spondylitis (Cochrane
Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2003. Oxford: Update Software.
49. The National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (NRAS) (2003). The National Rheumatoid
Arthritis Society Survey. Obtainable from: Lorraine Tanner, NRAS, Briarwood House, 11 College
Avenue, Maidenhead, Berks SL6 6AR.
50. Carr A, Ryan S, Cushnaghan J et al. Defining the Extended Clinical Role for Allied Health
professionals in Rheumatology ARC Conference Proceedings No.12, 2001. Arthritis Research
Campaign.

Page 26 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Inflammatory Arthritis

51. Emery P, Breedveld FC, Dougados M et al. Early referral recommendation for newly
diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis: evidence based development of a clinical guide. Annals of the
Rheumatic Diseases 2002; 61:290-297.
52. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2002). Guidance on the use of etanercept and
infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Technology Appraisal Guidance no 36.
www.nice.org.uk/Docref.asp?d=29671
53. British Society of Rheumatology: Guidelines for prescribing TNF-α blockers in adults with
rheumatoid arthritis. Report of a Working Party of the British Society for Rheumatology:
https://www.msecportal.org/portal/editorial/PublicPages/bsr/536883013/1.doc

BSRM Working Party Report Page 27

Inflammatory Arthritis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Page 28 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Osteoarthritis

5. Osteoarthritis

Summary

5.1 Osteoarthritis (OA) is extremely common, and the major cause of pain, physical disability and
restricted activities and participation amongst older people.
5.2 These problems are widely seen as inevitable and untreatable by the public as well as by many
health professionals, resulting in negative attitudes and little help being offered.
5.3 Evidence shows that much can be done to improve the quality of life of individuals with OA
through simple procedures such as education and empowerment, exercise, and appropriate simple
aids and appliances.
5.4 Joint replacement is an important option for the few people with the most severe forms of OA, but
professionals need more guidance on whom to refer.
5.5 Application of attainable benefits for a huge number of people requires improved knowledge
amongst professionals and a co-ordinated service.
5.6 There is no organised, integrated service for people with OA, in spite of its frequency and
economic importance. A new model of a service for the UK is proposed.
5.7 As part of their ‘overall strategy for the provision of Musculoskeletal services’, localities should
develop consensus with local stakeholders (including patients) on the indications for referral for
primary joint replacement surgery.
5.8 Consideration should be given to pilot studies for triage for those with OA, using therapists from
either orthopaedic or rheumatology teams.

Introduction

5.9 Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of joint disease. It is characterised by areas of
destruction of the articular cartilage that forms the load-bearing surfaces of joints. When
symptomatic, this joint damage leads to pain on movement, restriction of joint motion and stiffness
of joints. Lower limb joints, including knees and hips, are especially vulnerable to the disease, but
it frequently affects the hands, feet and other joints as well.

The Community burden of osteoarthritis

5.10 OA is strongly age-related, being uncommon in younger people, but affecting over 10% of all
adults over the age of 551. It is becoming a major social and economic burden in the developed
world2,3.
5.11 The WHO/World Bank report on the burden of disease estimates that OA will become the fourth
most important health condition to affect women in the world and the eighth most important in
men4.
5.12 Most hip and knee joint replacements are done because of OA5.
5.13 OA is the major cause of pain and physical disability in older people, and therefore the major
reason for use of pain-killers and physical therapy in that age group.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 29

Osteoarthritis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

5.14 OA is a major cause of lost work in people over the age of 503.

Prevention

5.15 The major risk factors for OA6, 1 include:

Increasing age
Obesity (hugely important for knee disease)
Joint trauma
Selected activities, such as work involving lifting and knee bending
Weak muscles.

5.16 The major opportunity for prevention comes with reducing obesity. Though there is no direct
evidence for obesity causing OA, the incidence of knee OA in particular is apparently reduced in
those who lose weight. It has been estimated that some 30% of knee OA could be prevented this
way6. Keeping generally fit and active throughout life, and maintaining good use of joints and
strength of muscles would probably also be very beneficial. (“What is good for the heart is good
for the joints”).

Treatment

5.17 There is no cure for OA, and, as yet, no treatment that can reverse joint damage. Addressing
biomechanical problems such as misalignment or instability may slow its progression. However,
most treatment concerns reducing pain and improving function. The most important elements of
management are:
Empowering people to manage their own problems – this involves education and
encouragement to keep active in spite of pain, as well as provision of help to aid function where
joints are compromised.
Exercise (see below).
Pain relief: a variety of tablets and topical preparations are available on prescription or over
the counter. The major issue here concerns the toxicity of widely used prescription drugs.
Other, non-pharmacological ways of relieving pain, such as acupuncture or trans-cutaneous
nerve stimulation (TENS), are sometimes appropriate.
Aids and appliances to help relieve pain and improve function (see below).
Dietary supplements such as glucosamine, chondroitin and vitamins. The medical value of
these is controversial at present, but they are widely used. People with OA use complementary
and alternative therapies extensively.
Surgery. The only effective treatment for people with a lot of pain from an osteoarthritic hip or
knee is joint replacement (see below).
5.18 The evidence base for these interventions has been reviewed elsewhere7, 8. In view of their
relevance to service provision, the only three interventions to be considered in more detail in this
report are exercise, aids and appliances and surgery.

Exercise and other physical therapy for mild to moderate

osteoarthritis

5.19 It is likely to be beneficial to maintain a good range of joint motion and maintain muscle strength
throughout life. Of current concern is the trend to an increasingly sedentary life, particularly

Page 30 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Osteoarthritis

amongst younger people, as this may lead to a massive increase in the prevalence of both
osteoarthritis and osteoporosis in future generations.
5.20 If an individual has developed OA, it is still beneficial to them to keep fit and physically active,
even though activity will cause pain. The idea that you can ‘wear out your joints’ through activity
is a dangerous myth, which results in many people becoming inappropriately disabled to the
detriment of their general health as well as their joints. It has been shown, for example, that
increasing general aerobic activity (more walking) decreases pain, improves function and helps the
general sense of well being of people with OA9.
5.21 Formal, supervised programmes of physical therapy have been shown to be one of the most
beneficial interventions that we have for established OA of the knee joints9, and similar benefits
probably accrue to people with hip disease. Trials have also shown that home-based exercise
programmes are effective11-13, particularly if supported and monitored14.

Aids and appliances for mild to moderate osteoarthritis

5.22 Because of the high prevalence of OA in feet, knees and hips in older people, a major proportion
of our aging population has difficulty getting around, with restrictions in walking distance, getting
up and down steps or stairs, getting up from chairs or toilet seats, and getting in and out of cars, for
example.
5.23 Aids and appliances can help enormously. A stick (of the right height, with a good ferrule and
held in the hand on the opposite side of the worst affected hip or knee) can make a big difference
by partly off-loading the arthritic joint.. Foot and ankle orthoses, such as shoe wedging or insoles
can be hugely beneficial again by redistributing loading through affected joints15. Braces or
simple bandages applied to the knee can relieve pain and increase the sense of security
walking16, 17 but need to be used intermittently; continuous use will lead to muscle wasting and
may thus make the knee unstable. In more advanced cases other walking aids, including frames,
with or without wheels, may be appropriate.

Orthopaedic surgery referral for severe osteoarthritis,

unresponsive to the above interventions

5.24 Hip and knee replacement surgery rates in England are rising18. This is largely due to the
increasing prevalence of OA in our aging population, but improved surgical techniques, making
the operation appropriate for a wider range of people (including the very elderly), are also
contributing.
5.25 However, it remains difficult to decide when an individual should have surgery7. If done too early
in the course of arthritis or at too young an age the benefits might be less, and the risk of the
prosthesis needing complex revision surgery higher. If done too late, then one has deprived the
individual of years of pain relief and improved mobility and the benefits may be less than usual19.
If the individual has already resorted to using a wheelchair, it may no longer be possible to regain
independent walking after surgery.
5.26 Some guidelines for referral and surgical prioritisation have been produced, based on consensus
conferences20-22. They stress the levels of pain and disability, but also take account of other issues,
such as psychosocial circumstances.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 31

Osteoarthritis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Summary of the New Zealand Priority Scoring System for Surgery for Knee or Hip Osteoarthritis.

Points are awarded out of 100

40 points depend on severity of pain

20 points depend on disability
20 points depend on the severity of joint damage
10 points depend on the presence of arthritis in other joints
10 points depend on other factors such as social circumstances

A score of 45 or more suggests the need for surgery, a score of 55 or more suggests that this should be a
priority.

Services for people with osteoarthritis

5.27 At present, in the UK, there is no specific service for OA, and no single profession that takes
responsibility for the co-ordination of services. As a result, what happens to different individuals
is a ‘hit-or-miss’ affair, and highly dependent on the variable knowledge or interest of local
people, particularly General Practitioners.
5.28 The situation is made worse by the fact that there is no specific patient interest group, although
Arthritis Care have recently highlighted the extent of the problem, (The OA Nation). Management
strategies have been influenced by pressures on clinicians from pharmaceutical firms or those that
make appliances and joint prostheses.
5.29 Possible reasons for this unfortunate state of affairs likely include the fact that joint pain and
stiffness in older people, and consequent disability, have been seen as an inevitable part of the
ageing process by the public and health professionals. An associated issue is the fact that patients
do not present to health professionals with ‘OA’ but with joint pain.
5.30 Current services for OA are, with a few notable exceptions, characterised by the lack of formal
structure. Consequential problems for those intending to provide or utilise services include:
Poor long term access to services and treatments
Lack of early treatment resulting in long-term problems
Ineffective use of treatments, caused in part by limited knowledge
Poor staff motivation to manage OA long term.
Poor staff knowledge of treatments and services provided by other health professional groups
Poor patient compliance with treatments
Poor co-ordination of different services used to manage OA - particularly primary care/
secondary care interface and NHS/Social services interface.
5.31 However, there are many positive features of existing services:
Most individuals are able and willing to self-manage the condition without outside help
Standards of most health professional services are high
High level of teamwork and integration within many departments
Good communication between staff and patients
Staff training and education is good within relevant specific fields such as Rheumatology and
Orthopaedics.
5.32 The result of the above situation is that patient management and outcome, especially for mild to
moderate OA not requiring surgery, is generally sub-optimal. There is certainly scope for

Page 32 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Osteoarthritis

improving service structures, which could result in significant improvements in the management
and outcome of people with OA. A planned and co-ordinated service could overcome most of the
current problems associated with services (or the lack of them) for OA.
5.33 The key recommendations are:
Early triage such that those needing surgical intervention are referred for this treatment rapidly.
For the remainder, a well-defined care pathway to ensure rapid access to specific interventions
such as joint injections, orthoses and a guided exercise programme.
The responsibility for specific interventions, such as use of injections and analgesics, could be
given to extended role practitioners.
Extended role practitioners would operate across several GP surgeries (or a PCT), providing
expertise in diagnosis, overall management and specific interventions, so that individuals
would be able to access most treatment locally.
The majority of treatment provision would take place within primary care or the community.
The use of group sessions in the community would greatly improve efficiency and
effectiveness of service
Individuals would be empowered to improve their self-management. The service would do this
by providing resources, support and help as needed. This should lead to fewer requirements for
direct health professional treatment provision.
The service should be called a ‘joint/OA service’ to encompass the way in which the problem
presents and is perceived by many in the community.

5.34 These recommendations would not be without costs: extra funding would be needed for staffing,
training and facilities. However, there would be potentially huge savings from existing services
with a likely reduction in the demand for costly interventions such as joint replacement.

References
1. Petersson IF. Occurence of osteoarthritis of the peripheral joints in European populations.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 1996;55:659-664.
2. Elders MJ. The increasing impact of arthritis on public health. J Rheumatol 2000;27:6-8.
3. Yelin E. The earnings, income, and assets of persons aged 51-61 with and without
musculoskeletal conditions. J Rheumatol 1997;24:2024-2030.
4. Murray C, Lopez A The Global Burden of Disease. WHO/World Bank 1996.
5. Dixon T, Shaw M, Ebrahim S, Dieppe P. Trends in hip and knee joint replacement; socio-
economic inequalities and projections of need. (Submitted for publication)
6. Felson D and Zhang Y An update on the epidemiology of knee and hip osteoarthritis with a
view to prevention Arthritis Rheum 1998; 41: 1343-1355.
7. Dieppe P, Basler H-D, Chard J, Croft P et al Knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis:
effectiveness, practice variations, indications and possible determinants of utilisation.
Rheumatology 1999; 38: 73-83.
8. Felson DT, Lawrence RC, Hochberg MC, et al. Osteoarthritis: New insights - Part 2:
Treatment approaches. Annals of Internal Medicine 2000;133:726-737.
9. Minor M. Exercise in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 1999; 25:
397-415.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 33

Osteoarthritis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

10. Kovar PA, Allegrante JP, Mackenzie CR, Gutin B, Charlson ME. Supervised Fitness
Walking In Patients With Osteoarthritis Of The Knee - A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Annals
of Internal Medicine 1992;116:529-534.
11. Baker KR, Nelson ME, Felson DT, Layne JE, Sarno R, Roubenoff R. The efficacy of home
based progressive strength training in older adults with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized
controlled trial. J Rheumatol 2001;28:1655-1665.
12. O'Reilly SC, Muir KR, Doherty M. Effectiveness of home exercise on pain and disability from
osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 1999;58:15-19.
13. Thomas KS, Muir KR, Doherty M, Jones AC, O'Reilly SC, Bassey EJ. Home based exercise
programme for knee pain and knee osteoarthritis: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2002;325:752.
14. Chamberlain MA. Care G. Harfield B. Physiotherapy in osteoarthrosis of the knees. A
controlled trial of hospital versus home exercises. [Clinical Trial. Journal Article. Randomized
Controlled Trial] International Rehabilitation Medicine 1982;4(2):101-6.
15. Toda Y, Segal N, Kato A, Yamamoto S, Irie M. Effect of a novel insole on the subtalar joint
of patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. J Rheumatol 2001;28:2705-2710.
16. Cushnaghan JM. Taping The Patella Medially - A New Treatment For Osteoarthritis Of The
Knee-Joint. Br Med J 1994;308:753-755.
17. Kirkley A, Webster-Bogaert S, Litchfield R, et al. The effect of bracing on varus gonarthrosis.
Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (am) 1999;81A:539-548.
18. Hospital Episode Statistics for England, Department of Health
www.dh.gov.uk/publicationsandstatistics/statistics/hospitalepisodestatistics/fs/en
19. Kennedy G, Newman J, Ackroyd C and Dieppe P. When should we do knee replacements?
Knee 2003; 10: 161-6.
20. Hardorn DC, Homes AC. The New Zealand priority criteria project. BMJ 1997;314:131-134.
21. Naylor CD, Williams JI. Primary hip and knee replacement surgery: Ontario criteria for case
selection and surgical priority. Quality in Health Care 1995;5:20-30.
22. NIH Consensus. Total hip replacement. Journal of the American Medical Association
1995;273:1950-1956.

Page 34 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Peri-operative and post-operative care - rehabilitation

6. Peri-operative and post-operative care - rehabilitation

Summary

6.1 Joint replacement surgery, particularly in the hip and knee, has revolutionised the lives of many
with arthritis. However, outcome is determined by many other factors in addition to the quality of
the surgery and the joint prosthesis used.
6.2 Many patients submitted to joint surgery have concomitant pathology or are on a variety of
medications. These can affect fitness for surgery and their impact on stamina, etc, may only
become evident after a damaged joint which has affected mobility has been replaced.
6.3 As a general rule, drugs for inflammatory arthritis should not be discontinued at the time of
surgery as this renders patients susceptible to disease exacerbation.
6.4 Once the function at certain joints is improved by surgery, there is a risk of more rapid
deterioration at other joints that, until surgery, were protected by the previous lack of function1,2.
6.5 This increased use should be anticipated and the patient offered a pre-operative exercise
programme to promote good function in these joints.
6.6 The incapacity produced by poor hand function while the patient is convalescing from hand
surgery can be even more incapacitating than the temporary loss of ability to walk. Upper limb
surgery can have a profound effect on mobility (short term) in those reliant on using walking aids.
6.7 The benefit from operations is significantly reduced by the lack of availability of subsequent
physiotherapy and occupational therapy. Therapy is needed to address issues such as problems in
other joints also affected by arthritis, and stamina.
6.8 With current trends in sub-specialisation, orthopaedic correction for inflammatory polyarthritis can
involve four or five different surgeons. Here, there is clearly a role for a physician, either
rehabilitationist or rheumatologist, to co-ordinate overall management.

Introduction

6.9 Total joint replacement has been hailed as one of the great advances of the last half-century. It is
used to relieve pain at severely damaged joints and, to a lesser extent, to restore function. The
longest established operation is total hip replacement. This was followed by total knee
replacement. Subsequently shoulders, elbows and ankles have been replaced. Small silastic joints
in the hands also substantially improve disordered hand function. Tendon transplant and
replacement surgery has also been developed to restore function where tendons have been ruptured
as a consequence of disease or trauma.
6.10 Joints are most often replaced in degenerative arthritis (OA) and inflammatory arthritis (usually
RA). Since OA is more prevalent in the elderly and RA involves organs other than the joints,
many patients submitted to joint surgery have concomitant pathology or are on various
medications. This requires careful integration, particularly if the programme for any individual
patient involves the replacement of more than one joint. The sequence of surgical procedures
needs to be considered carefully, bearing in mind biomechanical changes that may occur as the

BSRM Working Party Report Page 35

Peri-operative and post-operative care - rehabilitation Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

function at certain joints is improved. There is a risk of more rapid deterioration at joints that were
previously asymptomatic, protected by the previous lack of function1,2.
6.11 A multidisciplinary approach is desirable, the rheumatologist liaising closely with the orthopaedic
surgeon and the rehabilitationist and with other health professionals including physiotherapists,
occupational therapists and podiatrists.

Pre-operative assessment

6.12 The order in which damaged joints are to be replaced requires careful planning. Consideration
should be given to whether both hip or knee joints are to be replaced simultaneously or one after
another. A common biomechanical pattern is involvement of one hip and secondary involvement
through strain of the opposite knee joint, both of which may ultimately require replacement.
Home circumstances (eg Does the patient live alone? Will help be available? Is access to
bathroom, kitchen, etc, level?) should be considered prior to surgery. Any modifications needed to
make things easier for the convalescing patient can then be started pre-operatively, hopefully
avoiding the need for an extended hospital stay. These considerations do not only apply to weight-
bearing joints. The incapacity produced by poor hand function while the patient is convalescing
from hand surgery can be even more incapacitating than the temporary loss of ability to walk.
6.13 Careful anaesthetic assessment is also required, particularly in respect of heart and lungs, not only
in the elderly patient with osteoarthritis but also in rheumatoid patients who may have heart or
lung involvement from their disease or through drug toxicity. Rheumatoid involvement of the
cervical spine can make intubation hazardous. Operation under epidural anaesthesia may be
preferable in some patients3,4.

Peri-operative management

6.14 Patients with RA may be taking disease-modifying agents. There has always been a theoretical
risk that some of this may impair wound healing. Drugs that have an effect on the bone marrow or
the platelets may additionally predispose to haemorrhage, but the risk is generally low and out-
weighed by the advantages of continuing medication. Currently the ‘gold standard’ for the
treatment of RA remains methotrexate. Although this has previously been implicated in delayed
wound healing, this is not now felt to be a risk but the drug is still discontinued by a minority of
orthopaedic surgeons embarking on surgery, often for seven days, rendering the patient susceptible
to disease exacerbation as a result of withdrawal of treatment. This in turn means that any benefit
produced by the operation is minimised through the flare in adjacent joints. Penicillamine, now
infrequently used, reduces the strength of collagen and steroids reduce the total amount of
collagen, rendering the joint more vulnerable.
6.15 Patients with RA are more susceptible than average to infection and any infection detected in the
weeks prior to operation should be treated vigorously.

Post-operative management

6.16 Pain control is important post-operatively particularly to allow adequate early physiotherapy to
commence. At an early stage the transfer can be made to oral analgesics, though if an intravenous
line is left in, ‘on demand’ intravenous analgesic dosing can be provided. Initially, potent oral
analgesics may be required such as tramadol and dihydrocodeine. Later patients may be weaned
through co-codamol or co-proxamol towards paracetamol. Although the parallel prescription of
anti-inflammatory agents may be irrational, many patients derive benefit from this as well.
6.17 Early mobilisation is feasible eg within days of inserting a cemented total hip replacement and has
many advantages. In particular, risks of thromboembolic disease is reduced. Physiotherapy is

Page 36 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Peri-operative and post-operative care - rehabilitation

essential at this stage and should pay attention to the other joints involved. The benefit from some
operations, with the insertion of expensive prostheses, has been significantly reduced by the lack
of availability of subsequent physiotherapy. Patients receiving joint replacement for ankylosing
spondylitis need particularly intensive physiotherapy in the post-operative period. As the patient
becomes more mobile, additional strain is placed on other joints5,6. Such problems may affect
adjacent joints, and may also affect upper limb joints if weight bearing through walking aids is
needed after lower limb joint replacement surgery. Any resulting inflammation may need to be
alleviated with intra-articular steroid injections to allow physiotherapy to proceed at an adequate
pace. Replacement of other joints previously postponed, may need to be expedited if their
deterioration interferes with overall progress. Occupational therapists would also need to advise
on changes in requirement for aids to daily living as the patient convalesces. A temporary increase
in dependency may also necessitate the provision of home care services.
6.18 If localised problems have been cured by surgery, the rheumatologist may be able to consider
reducing or stopping drugs that were required prior to surgery. The increased ability to exercise
following large joint surgery in the leg may also have implications for the patient’s cardiac and
respiratory capacity, which in turn may need assessment and further treatment.
6.19 With the increased trend for orthopaedic surgeons to work in groups at major centres and with the
subsequent division of work such that each surgeon tends to concentrate on a particular site or
even individual joint, a programme of orthopaedic correction for inflammatory polyarthritis can
involve the use of up to four or five different surgeons. Here, there is clearly a role for a
physician, either rehabilitationist or rheumatologist, to co-ordinate overall management, ensuring
the patient does not fall between several stools.

References
1. Figgie MP, Ranawat CS, O’Malley MJ, Inglis AE, Sculco TP. Triple arthrodesis in rheumatoid
arthritis. Orthop Trans 1989; 12: 654.
2. Friedman RJ, Ewald FC. Arthroplasty of the ipsilateral shoulder and elbow in patients who
have rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Jt Surg 1987; 69A: 661-6.
3. Sharrock NE, Ranawat CS, Urquhart B, Peterson M. Factors influencing deep vein thrombosis
following total hip arthroplasty under epidural anaesthesia. Anesth Analg 1993; 76: 765-71.
4. Pellicci PM, Ranawat CS, Tsairis P, Bryan WJ. A prospective study of the progression of
rheumatoid arthritis of the cervical spine. J Bone Jt Surg 1981; 63A: 342-50.
5. Figgie MP, Inglis AE, Sobel M, Goldberg VM, Figgie HE III. Correction of angular
deformities in primary total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Trans 1989; 12: 589.
6. Shapiro JS. The etiology of ulnar drift: A new factor. J Bone Jt Surg 1968; 50A: 342.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 37

Peri-operative and post-operative care - rehabilitation Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Page 38 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Osteoporosis

7. Osteoporosis

Summary

7.1 Osteoporosis is a common problem with considerable morbidity and mortality. Health service
costs, including hospital care of fractures, rehabilitation and social care, are very high. The causes
of osteoporotic fracture are many, combining genetic risk, lifestyle and diet (including calcium and
vitamin D deficiency), ill health and vulnerability to falls and medication, particularly
glucocorticoids.
7.2 Population screening is not cost-effective at present but it is recommended that individuals at risk
are assessed and treated. There is an increasingly wide choice of effective medication for the
prevention and treatment of fracture.
7.3 Health professionals and people at risk of osteoporosis need to be aware of the problem and have
access to diagnostic services, particularly bone densitometry, and treatment advice.
7.4 Resources for this are inadequate in many areas of the UK, and in consequence many people at
high risk of osteoporosis eg people with Colles fracture and those receiving glucocorticoids are not
receiving appropriate advice and treatment. Further research is needed to determine the optimum
treatment of elderly people with hip fracture.
7.5 Certain sectors of the population, notably South Asian women and those who are elderly, infirm
and/or in institutional care with limited sunlight exposure are also particularly vulnerable to
metabolic bone disease with increased risk of fracture and hence warrant screening for these.

Introduction

7.6 Osteoporosis is defined as a progressive systemic skeletal disease characterised by low bone mass
and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, with a consequent increase in bone fragility
and susceptibility to fracture1. There are no symptoms until fracture occurs. Typically wrist
(Colles) or hip fractures occur after relatively low trauma, eg a fall from standing height or less.
Vertebral fractures may occur insidiously, with only one third of patients coming to medical
attention at the time of fracture due to pain2. The incidence of other fractures, particularly
humerus, pelvic and rib fractures may also be increased in people with osteoporosis3.
7.7 Asymptomatic people with osteoporosis may be identified before fracture by measuring their bone
mineral density (BMD) by a variety of techniques, the most reliable of which is dual energy X-
Ray absorptiometry (DXA), which measures BMD at the lumbar spine and hip, both potential
fracture sites. However, measurements of BMD can only predict the risk of fracture, which
increases as BMD decreases, and fractures may occur in people with normal BMD. Other factors,
such as risk of falling are also important4. As the occurrence of one osteoporotic fracture predicts
further fractures, people with osteoporosis may be identified and treated after their first fracture,
commonly a Colles fracture.

The impact of Osteoporosis

7.8 This is considerable. It can be considered in terms of the morbidity and mortality of the individual
and of the economic cost to society. For the person with osteoporosis, hip fracture has the most
serious consequences with an increased risk of death of 10-20% in the first year5. Mortality is

BSRM Working Party Report Page 39

Osteoporosis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

higher in men6. As this fracture occurs mainly in frail elderly individuals who fall, much of this
excess mortality may reflect the poor state of health leading to fracture. However, survivors are
more dependent, and of those previously able to walk, 50% have reduced ability to walk
independently. Approximately half of survivors require long term care or help with activities of
daily living7,8. Vertebral fractures cause both acute and chronic pain, kyphosis and height loss,
and have an increased mortality which to some extent is associated with underlying chronic
disease, and affect physical function, body image and self esteem7. Wrist fractures interfere
considerably with work and domestic activities and may make the difference between independent
living and temporary care in an elderly person already having functional difficulties.
7.9 Osteoporosis is very common, more so in women than men. The lifetime risk of hip fracture is
approximately one in six for white women, similar to the risks of clinically apparent vertebral
fracture and wrist fracture7,9. The cost of medical and social care of osteoporotic fractures in the
United Kingdom has been estimated as £1.7 billion per year10.

Prevention of Osteoporosis

Population prevention

7.10 The risk of osteoporotic fracture is determined by the amount of bone at adulthood (peak bone
mass), the rate at which it is lost through the menopause and old age, the quality of bone eg
mineralisation, and the risk of falls which increase with age. Seventy-eighty per cent of bone mass
is genetically determined and the rest may be influenced by environmental factors such as diet, in
particular calcium intake, and exercise11. Adequate vitamin D to maintain bone mineralisation is
important, particularly in housebound elderly people and those of South Asian origin12.
7.11 Whilst there is good evidence that high dietary calcium intake and exercise in growth and
adolescence is beneficial to the skeleton, it is difficult to prove that this will prevent children
having fragility fractures when they reach old age. Exercise in adulthood has only a small effect
on bone mass and the effect is lost when exercise ceases13. Exercise in elderly people may improve
muscle strength and co-ordination and reduce the risk of falls without much benefit to bone
mineral density14. Fall prevention programmes have in some cases been successful in reducing the
amount of falls, but as only a small percentage of falls result in fracture, effects on fracture rate are
less easy to show13. Hip protectors in elderly people at risk of falling reduce the incidence of hip
fracture if worn15 but compliance is poor and the cost is approximately £40 per pair, with at least
three pairs per user required to allow for washing. There is good evidence that calcium and
vitamin D supplementation in institutionalised elderly people helps prevent fracture16. A recent
study of oral vitamin D supplementation given once every four months in community living
people over the age of 65 showed a 30% reduction in osteoporotic fracture17. The intervention was
safe and cheap but required 250 people to be treated for one year for every fracture prevented.
7.12 The widespread use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) at the menopause to reduce post-
menopausal bone loss and the risk of future fracture has been advocated in the past, but uptake has
been poor. Recent studies have shown a small but significantly increased risk of coronary heart
disease and stroke, as well as the previously known increases in risk of breast cancer and
thrombosis18 and the use of HRT for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis is no longer
routinely recommended.
7.13 Population screening by BMD measurements at present is not recommended as although these
measurements have high specificity, sensitivity is low and could not be justified in terms of cost
effectiveness9.

Page 40 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Osteoporosis

Targeting the individual at risk

7.14 Risk factors for osteoporosis are well established and indications for bone densitometry (DXA)
have been produced by the Royal College of Physicians (Table 7.1). However, the physician who
may be assessing the individual for other reasons needs to be alert to the possibility of osteoporosis
and needs access to bone densitometry. At present access to bone densitometry is inadequate in
the United Kingdom. However, not all individuals with risk factors or fractures require
densitometry. For example an elderly person with multiple vertebral fractures should be offered
treatment irrespective of BMD measurement.

Table 7.19
Risk factors providing indications for the diagnostic use of bone densitometry

Presence of Strong risk factors

Oestrogen deficiency Premature menopause (age <45 years)
Prolonged secondary amenorrhoea (>1year)
Primary hypogandism

Corticosteroid therapy

Maternal family history of hip fracture

Low body mass index

Other disorders associated with osteoporosis Anorexia nervosa

Malabsorption syndromes
Primary hyperparathyroidism
Post-transplantation
Chronic renal failure
Hyperthyroidism
Prolonged immobilisation*
Cushing’s syndrome
Radiographic evidence of osteopenia and/or
vertebral deformity

Previous fragility fracture, particularly of the hip,

spine or wrist

Loss of height, thoracic kyphosis (after radiographic

confirmation of vertebral deformities)

* the working party considers that any persistent mobility problem sufficiently severe to hamper
outdoor walking should be included here

BSRM Working Party Report Page 41

Osteoporosis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Glucocorticoid Induced Osteoporosis

7.15 New guidelines on the assessment and treatment of glucocorticoid (corticosteroid) induced
osteoporosis have recently been published by the Royal College of Physicians, in association with
the Bone and Tooth and National Osteoporosis Societies and are summarised in Table 7.219.

Table 7.2

Summary of Guidelines for the treatment of glucocorticoid (corticosteroid) induced

osteoporosis
(i) Individuals at high risk of fracture eg those aged 65 years or over and those with a previous
fragility fracture should be advised to start bone protective treatment at the time of starting
glucocorticoids.

(ii) Bone densitometry (DXA) should be considered in people under 65 years of age without a
previous fragility fracture where oral glucocorticoid treatment is planned for 3 months or more,
and bone protective treatment should be considered in people with a T-score of –1.5 or lower on
densitometry.

(iii) Individuals with a T-score above 0 may be reassured and advised about lifestyle. Monitoring
by DXA is not indicated unless glucocorticoid doses are very high.

(iv) Individuals with a T score of 0 to –1.5 require monitoring by DXA at intervals of 1-3 years if
glucocorticoids continue.

(v) Investigation and treatment of people with fragility fractures occurring during glucocorticoid
treatment is recommended.

(vi) A number of treatments have been used for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid
induced osteoporosis. Alendronate, cyclical etidronate and risedronate are licensed for this
indication. Calcium and Vitamin D are generally regarded as adjuncts to treatment.

7.16 The use of glucocorticoids is widespread, with a prevalence of 1% of the adult population, and is
associated with rapid loss of bone mineral density, greatest in the first year of treatment, and a
dose dependent increase in the risk of fracture. Even modest doses of prednisolone of between
2.5-7.5mg per day may double the risk of hip and vertebral fracture. Epidemiological data
suggest that the vast majority of glucocorticoid treated individuals have not been assessed for
osteoporosis risk or treated for fracture prevention.
7.17 It is recommended that healthcare commissioners ensure adequate resources are available for the
full implementation of these guidelines in primary and secondary care. Funding will be required
in primary care to provide the resources for the identification and management of patients at risk.
Provision of bone densitometry services (DXA) is currently inadequate to enable implementation
of the guidelines in all parts of the UK and it is recommended these resources are increased19.

Page 42 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Osteoporosis

Treatment of Osteoporosis

7.18 This can be divided into the treatment of the fracture and its consequences and the reduction of
risk of future fracture.

Hip fracture

7.19 The management of hip fracture generally involves pain relief, surgical fixation and rehabilitation.
Recovery may be complicated by coexistent medical problems. Attention to nutritional state is
important20. Studies on prevention of further fracture in elderly people with hip fracture have not
been performed. Ideally each person should be assessed individually for risk factors for both
osteoporosis and falls, investigated where appropriate and given advice, tailored to their needs, on
calcium and vitamin D intake, physical exercise and hip protectors. For some people
bisphosphonates or HRT may be appropriate and routine calcium and vitamin D supplementation
in all people should be considered where intake is low. Studies of efficacy and cost effectiveness
however, have not yet been done, and further research is needed.

Vertebral fractures

7.20 People with vertebral fracture require pain relief, physiotherapy and postural advice, assessment
for risk factors for osteoporosis or underlying disease, lifestyle advice and treatment to prevent
further fracture. A number of effective drugs are available for this purpose, with good evidence
for benefit21.

Colles fracture

7.21 Although this fracture is commonly associated with osteoporosis, generally investigation and
assessment of people for osteoporosis after a Colles fracture is inadequate. Approximately one
third of people with a Colles fracture under 66 years of age are osteoporotic, rising to two thirds
over the age of 6622. Bone densitometry and appropriate investigation and treatment are
recommended for this group of people as the fracture alone is not sufficient to make the diagnosis
of osteoporosis. Assessment of people with Colles fracture by a specialist osteoporosis nurse in a
fracture clinic, followed by bone densitometry where appropriate and recommendations for further
treatment to the general practitioner, is an efficient system available to relatively few hospitals at
present and would require further resources and staffing.

Recommendations

7.22 Each Primary Care Trust should look at their local services for osteoporosis and ensure there is
adequate, co-ordinated primary and secondary care provision for osteoporosis prevention and
management.
7.23 This should include agreed protocols for:
indications for bone densitometry
assessment of osteoporosis risk following colles and other potentially osteoporotic fractures
assessment of osteoporosis risk in people receiving glucocorticoids
investigation and management of established disease.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 43

Osteoporosis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

7.24 Funding for appropriate local services:

bone densitometry (DXA)
osteoporosis specialist nurses. The precise role of specialist nurses can be determined
according to local need but the examples include:
- assessment of osteoporosis risk in orthopaedic fracture clinic, eg colles fracture
- secondary prevention in hip fracture
- liaison with general practitioners
- advice on glucocorticoid osteoporosis for hospital specialities and general
practitioners.

Vitamin D deficiency and osteomalacia

7.25 Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is produced in the skin by the action of sunlight on its precursor,
7 - dehydrocholesterol. Dietary vitamin D (comprising both D3 and D2) is of secondary
importance and alone is insufficient in the United Kingdom to protect against vitamin D deficiency
in the absence of sunlight exposure23. There is seasonal variation in plasma 25 (OH)2 D levels in
the United Kingdom with a nadir in the winter months24.
7.26 Vitamin D is metabolised in the liver to 25 (OH)2 then hydroxylated further in the kidney to the
active metabolite 1,25 dihydroxy vitamin D. Renal insufficiency causes a decrease in renal
1 – hydroxylase activity and this is important in elderly people due to the age related decline in
renal function25 as well in people with renal disease. Vitamin D deficiency in elderly people leads
to calcium malabsorption, secondary hyperparathyroidism and accelerated bone turnover,
contributing to age related bone loss26, and supplementation with calcium and vitamin D is
generally recommended as an adjunct to osteoporosis prevention and treatment in people over the
age of 6527.
7.27 Although certain disease states eg malabsorption, alcoholic liver disease and chronic renal failure
may give vitamin D deficiency and osteomalacia, the main groups at risk in the United Kingdom
are elderly infirm people with inadequate exposure to sunlight and people of South Asian origin,
particularly those whose traditional dress results in decreased sunlight exposure and those who are
vegetarian.

Vitamin D deficiency in the elderly

7.28 Housebound elderly people and those living in care homes are at particular risk of vitamin D
deficiency due to lack of sunlight exposure, declining renal function and dietary inadequacy.
Vitamin D deficiency may lead to muscular weakness and increased risk of falling, with bone loss
and impaired mineralisation contributing to the risk of fracture when the fall occurs28.
Approximately 10% of people with hip fracture met stringent histological criteria for osteomalacia
in one study in the North of England29.
7.29 Supplementation with 1.2g calcium and 800iu vitamin D3 daily has been shown to reduce hip and
non-vertebral fracture in elderly women30 and 1g calcium and 800iu vitamin D3 to correct
biochemical vitamin D deficiency and secondary hyperparathyroidism in institutionalised elderly
people31.

Vitamin D deficiency in people of South Asian origin

7.30 Vitamin D deficiency has been recognised as a problem in Asian people living in the United
Kingdom for over 30 years32 and is still being reported from Hindu vegetarian populations in

Page 44 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Osteoporosis

Leicester33 and London34 as well as being seen regularly in clinical practice in Birmingham35 and
in the Muslim non-vegetarian population of West Yorkshire (personal communication).
7.31 Vitamin D deficiency has the potential to affect all age groups. Maternal vitamin D deficiency
may affect the developing foetus and neonate. In children hypocalcaemic fits, rickets and dental
enamel hypoplasia can occur and head and linear growth may be affected. Adults may have a
range of problems from Musculoskeletal aches, myopathy and pseudo fractures. As vitamin D
deficiency is common, it may co-exist with other illnesses, and as in the elderly housebound of
Caucasian origin, the housebound Asian person with other illness or disability may be at increased
risk. Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with a higher risk of tuberculosis36 in one Asian
population in London, and it is postulated that vitamin D deficiency may influence the
development of other illnesses including osteoarthritis and some types of cancer37,38.

Prevention of vitamin D deficiency and osteomalacia

7.32 There is uncertainty about the optimum dose of vitamin D for routine supplementation for elderly
people39. There is good evidence that 800iu vitamin D daily is safe and in conjunction with
calcium 1g per day helps prevent fracture30,31,40. Four monthly oral supplementation of 100,000
units of vitamin D3 has been shown to be safe in community living elderly people in Britain41.
7.33 Similarly recommendations for supplements for prevention of vitamin D deficiency in South Asian
people are uncertain. One author recommends all pregnant Asian women should receive vitamin
D supplements of either 400iu daily from booking clinic appointment or 1000iu daily during the
last trimester and all Asian infants should receive 400iu vitamin D daily35.
7.34 The recommendations of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy42 is that Asian women
and children in the UK should take supplementary vitamin D, and also that elderly people (over
the age of 65), pregnant and lactating women and adults confined indoors of all races should
receive supplementary vitamin D of 10µg/day (400iu).

Recommendations

7.35 Greater public and health professional awareness of the importance of vitamin D deficiency is
needed.
7.36 Specific education programmes are needed for at risk groups:
elderly people
people housebound or living in institutions due to disability
South Asian people living in the United Kingdom.
7.37 Further research is needed into:
The optimum vitamin D requirements for different age and ethnic groups
The optimum mode of administration (eg daily, four monthly or annually) of vitamin D
supplements
The formulation of cheap, convenient and palatable supplements to encourage uptake and
increase compliance.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 45

Osteoporosis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

References
1. World Health Organisation 1994.
2. Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, O’Fallon WM, Melton LJ. Incidence of clinically diagnosed vertebral
fracture: a population based study in Rochester, Minnesota, 1985-1989. J Bone Miner Res 1992;
7: 221-27.
3. Seely DB, Browner WS, Nevitt MC, Genant HK, Scott JC, Cummings SR. Which fractures
are associated with low appendicular bone mass in elderly women? Ann Intern Med 1991; 115:
837-42.
4. Kanis JA. Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 2002; 359:1929-
36.
5. Toss CJ, Freeman CJ, Camilleri-Ferrante C et al. Differences in mortality after fracture of the
hip: The East Anglian Audit. BMJ 1995; 310: 904-98.
6. Poor G, Atkinson EJ, O’Fallon WC, Melton LJ III. Determinants of reduced survival following
hip fractures in men. Clin Orthop 1995; 319:260-5.
7. Cummings SR, Melton LJ. Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet
2002; 351:1761-1767.
8. Poor G, Jacobson SJ, Melton LJ. Mortality after hip fracture. Facts Res Gerontol 1994; 7:91-
109.
9. Royal College of Physicians and the Bone and Tooth Society. Osteoporosis: Clinical
Guidelines for prevention and treatment. Update on pharmacological interventions and an
algorithm for management. Royal College of Physicians and the Bone and Tooth Society.
London: 2000.
10. Torgerson DJ, Iglesias CP, Reid DM. The economics of fracture prevention. In: Barlow DH
ed. The effective management of osteoporosis. London Aesculapius Medical Press 2001: 111-
21.
11. Eastell R, Lambert H. Diet and Healthy Bones. Calcified Tissue International 2002; 70:400-
404.
12. Chapuy MC, Arlot ME, Duboeuf F, Brun J, Crouzet B, Arnaud S. Vitamin D3 and calcium to
prevent hip fractures in elderly women. N Eng J Med 1992; 327:1637-42.
13. Karlsson M, Bass S, Seeman E. The evidence that exercise during growth or adulthood
reduces the risk of fragility fractures is weak. Best Practice and Research Clinical Rheumatology
2001; 15:429-450.
14. Kelley GA. Aerobic exercise and bone density at the hip in post-menopausal women: a meta
analysis. Preventative Medicine 1998; 27:798-807.
15. Lauritzeu JB, Petersen MM, Lund B. Effect of external hip protectors on hip fractures.
Lancet 1993; 341: 11-13.
16. Chapuy MC, Arlot ME, Duboef F, Brun J, Crouzet B, Arnaud S et al. Vitamin D3 and
calcium to prevent hip fractures in elderly women. N Engl J Med 1992; 327:1637-42.
17. Trivedi DP, Doll R, Khaw KT. Effect of four monthly oral vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol)
supplementation on fractures and mortality in men and women living in the community:
randomised double blind controlled trial. BMJ 2003; 326:469-472.
18. Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. JAMA 2002; 288:321-333.

Page 46 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Osteoporosis

19. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Guidelines for prevention and treatment. Bone and
Tooth Society of Great Britain. National Osteoporosis Society. Royal College of Physicians
London: 2002.
20. Delmi M, Rapin C-H, Bengoa J-M, Delmas PD, Vasey H, Bonjour J-P. Dietary
supplementation in elderly patients with fractured neck of the femur. Lancet 1990; 335:1013-
1016.
21. Osteoporosis. Clinical guidelines for prevention and treatment. Update on pharmacological
interventions and an algorithm for management. Royal College of Physicians of London, Bone
and Tooth Society. London: 2000.
22. Earnshaw SA, Cawte SA, Worley A, Hosking DJ, Colles fracture of the wrist as an
indicator of underlying osteoporosis in post-menopausal women: A prospective study of
bone mineral density and bone turnover rate. Osteoporos Int 1998; 8: 53-60.
23. Davies M. Treatment of osteomalacia. In: Ed Hosking D, Ringe J eds. Treatment
of Metabolic Bone Disease. Management strategy and drug therapy. Martin Dunitz Ltd
2000.
24. Lawson DE, Paul AA, Black AE, Cole TJ, Mandal AR, Davie M. Relative contributions of
diet and sunlight to vitamin D state in the elderly. BMJ 1979; 2(6185):303-305.
25. Francis RM, Peacock M, Barkworth SA. Renal impairment and its effects on calcium
metabolism in elderly women. Age Ageing 1984; 13:14-20.
26. Riggs BL, Melton LG. Involutional osteoporosis. N Engl J. Med 1986; 314:1676-1686.
27. Royal College of Physicians. Osteoporosis clinical guidelines for prevention and treatment
London: 1999.
28. Pfiefer M, Begerow B, Minne HW, Abrams C, Nachtigall D, Hansen C. Effects of a short
term vitamin D and calcium supplementation on body sway and secondary hyperparathyroidism in
elderly women. J Bone Min Res 2000; 15:1113-1118.
29. Hordon LD, Peacock M. Osteomalacia and osteoporosis in femoral neck fracture. Bone
Miner 1990; 11 247-59.
30. Chapuy MC, Arlot ME, Delmas PD, Meunier PJ. Effect of cholecalciferol treatment for three
years on hip fractures in elderly women. BMJ 1994; 308:1081-2.
31. Chapuy MC, Chapuy P, Thomas JL, Hazard MC, Meunier PJ. Biochemical effects of calcium
and vitamin D supplementation in elderly institutionalised vitamin D deficient patients. Rev
Rheum 1996; 53:135-140.
32. Ford JH, Colhoun EM, McIntosh WB, Dunnigan MG. Rickets and osteomalacia in the
Glasgow Pakistani Community 1961-1971. BMJ 1972; 2:677-80.
33. Iqbal SJ, Kaddam I, Wassif W, Nichol F, Walls J. Continuing clinically severe vitamin D
deficiency in Asians in the UK (Leicester) Postgrad Med J 1994; 70:708-714.
34. Lawson M, Thomas M. Vitamin D concentrations in Asian children aged 2 years living in
England : population survey BMJ 1999; 318: 28.
35. Shaw NH, Pal BR. Vitamin D deficiency in UK Asian families: activating a new concern.
Arch Dis child 2002; 86: 147-149.
36. Wilkinson RJ, Llewelyn M, Toossi P, et al. Influence of vitamin D deficiency and vitamin D
receptor polymorphisms on tuberculosis among Gujerati Asians in West London: a case control
study. Lancet 2000; 355:618-621.
37. McAlindon TE, Felson DT, Zhang Y, et al. Relation of dietary intake and serum levels of
vitamin D to progression of osteoarthritis of the knee among participants in the Fromingham
study. Ann Intern Med 1996; 125:353-359.
38. Zitterman A. Vitamin D in preventative medicine: are we ignoring the evidence. British
Journal of Nutrition 2003; 89:552-572.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 47

Osteoporosis Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

39. Heaney RP. Vitamin D: How much do we need and how much is too much? Osteoporos Int
2000; 11:553-555.
40. Compston JE. Vitamin D deficiency: time for action. Evidence supports routine
supplementation for elderly people and others at risk. BMJ 1998; 317(7171):1466-1467.
41. Trivedi DP, Doll R, Khan KT. Effect of four monthly vitamin D supplementation on fractures
and mortality in men and women living in the community; randomised double blind controlled
trial. BMJ 2003; 326:469-472.
42. Report of the Panel of Dietary Reference Values of the Committee on Medical Aspects of
Food Policy. Reports on Health and Social Subjects 1991; 41:1-210.

Page 48 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Regional problems

8. Regional problems

Summary

8.1 This review concentrates on mechanical and degenerative spinal pain in the absence of nerve or
root compression.
8.2 Rehabilitation begins in primary care with a holistic assessment including a physical examination,
exclusion of ‘red flags’, employment and psychosocial assessments and the eliciting any specific
fears the patient experiences.
8.3 There are no major differences in the management of neck or low back pain although trauma
should be considered a ‘red flag’ for neck pain.
8.4 In acute spinal pain, advice to ‘keep going’ with assistance of analgesia and/or non-steroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs is the mainstay of treatment.
8.5 For those in employment, efforts must be made to keep them at their workplace by liaison with
employers and modifying the nature and duration of the working day as needed.
8.6 In the sub-acute stage, addressing psychosocial issues combined with physical approaches offer
the best chance of avoiding chronicity, with formal cognitive behavioural approaches for those not
responding to physical management alone, or with clear psychosocial issues.
8.7 For those with intractable back pain, evidence supports intensive rehabilitation programmes
involving multi-professional physical, psychosocial, educational and vocational components.
These should include; learning to function in spite of pain, cognitive behavioural therapy; and the
development of physical tolerance in both fitness and vocational areas.
8.8 Like spinal problems, shoulder problems are very common accounting for some 5% of GP
consultations. Those who have had a recent stroke are particularly vulnerable to shoulder problems
on the hemiplegic side.
8.9 Prevention by careful positioning, lifting and handling is the key to management in the latter, in
particular.
8.10 Many treatment options are used, including exercises, manipulation, physical modalities such as
electrical stimulation, heat and ultrasound and intra-articular steroid injections. Some evidence
supports the use of these treatments in specific shoulder disorders, but, generally, clinical trials
have been inconclusive.
8.11 In the majority of cases, shoulder problems resolve. However, a significant minority have
persistent shoulder dysfunction interfering with independence and ability to work. These
individuals require rehabilitation to develop strategies to circumvent the shoulder problems.

Low back pain

8.12 Low back pain is the second most frequent cause of long-term sickness absence for much of the
UK1, particularly so for those in manual occupations2. “The direct healthcare costs and the costs
resulting from sick leave and early retirement due to back pain reach an annual sum which is over
three times higher than the corresponding costs for all cancer diseases. Against this background, it
is remarkable that research on back pain, particularly research related to prevention, pain relief,
and rehabilitation is relatively limited in scope”3.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 49

Regional problems Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Prevention

8.13 Low back pain can be prevented in the workplace. Trials suggest that:
workplace exercise is effective
braces and education are ineffective
workplace modification plus education is of unknown value4.
8.14 Although there is no evidence supporting risk factor modification for preventing low back pain
(smoking cessation and weight loss), there are other reasons to recommend such interventions.
Regular physical training or exercise is the only proven physical method of prevention of
backpain3, and subsequent sickness absence5.
8.15 A population-based strategy of provision of positive messages about back pain improves
population and general practitioner beliefs about back pain and seems to influence medical
management and reduce disability and workers’ compensation costs related to back pain6.

Management

The acute phase (0-10 days)

8.16 Several bodies have issued guidelines for the initial (primary care) management7. All recommend
initial triage of patients into three groups:
non-specific low back pain
back pain with nerve root (or cauda equina) compression
other diseases presenting as low back pain.
and all use ‘red flags’ to alert clinicians to serious pathology.

Table 8.1

Red flags for risk of serious underlying pathology

Constant unremitting pain in atypical or multiple sites

Pain unrelated to movement / posture
(non-mechanical pain)
Thoracic pain
Systemic/constitutional symptoms
Age less than 20 or over 55* with no previous similar episodes of pain
Past history of steroid use, HIV infection or carcinoma
Widespread neurology
Structural deformity
* Frequently modified to 65 in practice
From Clinical Standards Advisory Group, 19948

Page 50 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Regional problems

8.17 For non-specific low back pain, a wide range of treatments is available, but for many of these,
evidence for efficacy is limited. As part of the UK BEAM trial, optimal care from primary care
physicians has been formulated and widely agreed. The so-called ‘active management’
incorporates into clinical practice the concepts of red flags, uses the ‘Back Book’9 as the
cornerstone of information given to patients and reinforces aggressively the advantages of keeping
going and disadvantages of rest/inactivity. Bed rest should be avoided particularly in the absence
of nerve root compression or other pathology. Reassurance that clicks are not harmful and that
severity of pain does not equal severity of cause (serious illness) is recommended.
8.18 Simple questions should be used to elicit the fears many patients experience. Mostly these concern
disability or its consequences. Fears of severe disease, even in secondary care, are unusual.
8.19 Good evidence supports the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and
analgesics. Reasonable evidence supports the use of muscle relaxants to facilitate activity10 and
use of manual therapy or manipulation in acute low back pain11, 12. There is inconsistent evidence
that specific exercise programmes are better than advice to simply keep active11,13. Evidence does
not support the use of acupuncture14 or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)15 in
acute back pain. There are no studies of injections in acute low back pain in the absence of
sciatica.
8.20 Early physiotherapy, including education and activity for acute episodes of back pain (seen within
three days instead of ten) has shown that 57% of patients returned to work within ten days
compared with 36% of the control group16. The risk of developing chronic pain was eight times
lower for patients in the early intervention group, with only 2% remaining out of work at seven
month follow-up16 compared with 15% in the other group. A study of 14,000 US postal workers
using an early treatment protocol implemented if the worker was off work for more than seven
days, reduced costs by 55% and days lost by 60%17.
8.21 Fordyce compared traditional and behavioural methods of treating acute back pain of 10 days
duration or less. After 9-12 months those given more supervision and planned withdrawal of
treatment (behavioural group) were ‘less sick’ and claimed ‘less impairment’ than the group able
to control their own schedules of medication, activity, exercise and follow up18.

The subacute phase (10 days to 3 months)

8.22 Strong evidence supports multidisciplinary rehabilitation approaches and exercises7, manipulation
and manual therapy13 and muscle relaxants if clear evidence of muscle spasm is found on
examination10. Workplace visits increase the effectiveness of rehabilitation7. There is inconsistent
evidence to support massage.
8.23 Patients attitudes and beliefs about back pain, behaviours, compensation and emotional issues can
all be noted early during the subacute period7, 19. Psychological factors may inhibit resolution of
symptoms. These ‘yellow flags’ given in Table 8.2 are amenable to psychological or psychiatric
intervention.
8.24 Delays in obtaining specialist advice contribute to non-resolution of acute/subacute back pain,
increasing the risk of pain becoming intractable. This is costly for employers and the state20.
Multi-professional integrated programs within three months can abort this process21.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 51

Regional problems Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Table 8.2

Yellow flags for risk of chronicity in unresolved low back pain

Presence of a belief that back pain is harmful or potentially severely disabling

Fear-avoidance behaviour (avoiding a movement or activity due to misplaced anticipation of pain) and
reduced activity levels
Tendency to low mood and withdrawal from social interaction
An expectation that passive treatments rather than active participation will help

Suggested questions (phrased in treatment providers own words)

Have you had time off work in the past for low back pain?
What do you understand is the cause of your back pain?
How are your employer/co-workers/family responding to your back pain?
What are you doing to cope with back pain?
Do you think you will return to work? When?
From Kendall NAS et al19

The chronic phase

8.25 Exercise regimes aim to increase range of movement, strengthen muscles, stretch tightened
structures or toughen up physically and mentally. Exercises combined with behavioural methods
are more effective than exercise alone at reducing sickness behaviour and getting people back to
work quicker21,22. Intensive outpatient physical retraining consisting of pain relief and
mobilisation, increasing movement and muscle strengthening and work conditioning reduces
sickness absence. In North America, health care costs were offset by savings in ‘wages loss cost’23.
8.26 Manual therapy including manipulation is effective in reducing chronic pain13. There is
inconsistent evidence to support the use of lumbar corsets 24.
8.27 Outcome is enhanced if workplace visits are performed7. There is no evidence that analgesia or
NSAIDs give benefit beyond short-term symptom relief. There is inconsistent evidence to support
the use of tricyclic antidepressants in the use of non-neurogenic back pain in the absence of
depression.

Intractable back pain

8.28 A few patients have persisting disabling pain despite the above management. Up to 10% or more
of such referrals to the secondary sector may have an underlying medical problem25, 26. In the
absence of an underlying disease, however, both physical and psychological factors are likely to
be influencing symptoms and both aspects must be addressed.

Physical management

8.29 Clues that physical aspects are important lie in the pain pattern which is typically episodic and
related to movement or posture. Sleep patterns are important. After checking bedding, it must be
established whether sleep loss is due to insomnia, pain or depression. Unvarying pain suggests that
depression may be present. If pain disturbs sleep, long-acting analgesics are needed. If the pain is
post-traumatic, flashbacks and nightmares need to be excluded. Convincing evidence is lacking
regarding the effects of injection therapy on low back pain27.

Page 52 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Regional problems

Psychosocial management

8.30 There is strong evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has a moderate positive effect
on pain intensity and small positive effects on functional status and behavioural outcomes28.
8.31 Usually both physical and behavioural approaches are combined simultaneously18,21,22. Pre-
existing psychopathology is frequent in those requiring intensive rehabilitation and does not
militate against a successful outcome29.
8.32 ‘Back Schools’ may mean any programme with an educational content varying from one
outpatient session to an inpatient programme. They are particularly effective in occupational
settings.
8.33 Intensive rehabilitation programmes involve multi-professional physical, psycho-social,
educational, pain management and vocational components7 which include learning to function in
spite of pain, CBT, and developing physical tolerance in both fitness and vocational areas, eg the
Helsinki30, Texas31, Copenhagen32 and Turku33 programmes. Such programmes embrace the
concepts of:
back school education
work hardening
sports injury approach
functional restoration.
8.34 Results may be better if the programme is inpatient30.

Return to work

8.35 A key rehabilitation strategy addresses those factors that prevent individuals from working20.
8.36 Employers may incorporate:
stress management programmes
ergonomic practice in work
injury prevention programmes
occupational health programmes eg on-site first aid and a ‘keep working’ approach.
8.37 There is little evidence to support education by itself; initiatives that include participation of the
workforce and organisational change are more effective7.
8.38 Co-morbidity may determine whether an individual will return to work26.
8.39 Risk factors for chronicity and sickness absence, so-called ‘blue flags’ are:
Job dissatisfaction, eg job demands, job content (including repetitiveness), limited control over
work patterns
perceived lack of support from supervisor/colleagues
role factors (eg future career issues)
technology and organisational/management issues34.
8.40 So-called ‘black flags’ are obstacles to recovery that affect all workers equally and relate to
nationally established policy and working conditions eg pay rates or benefits. Local issues may
include sickness policy, management style and organisational issues34.
8.41 Although treatment has generally been evaluated for symptom control, evidence on effective ways
of helping patients back into employment has recently been reviewed7. For those having
difficulties in returning to normal activities at 4-12 weeks, changing the focus from symptomatic
treatment to a Back School approach to rehabilitation can:

BSRM Working Party Report Page 53

Regional problems Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

expedite return to work

reduce chronic disability
reduce sickness absence.
8.42 Temporary provision of lighter or modified duties also facilitates return to work. Whilst such
programmes can reduce sickness absence23, 30, cost-effectiveness has not been established in the
UK. The Canadian studies, however, showed savings in terms of:
days lost from work
wage-loss benefits costs
total costs of treatment
less costly permanent disability awards and less pensions awarded to the intervention group23.
8.43 Similar results were not found in Finland33. One explanation could be that the social security
background of the country concerned influences outcome. Benefits available in many European
countries may remove the incentive to return to work whereas in the USA some state payments
cease after a period giving a strong incentive to get back to work quickly.

Neck pain

8.44 Neck pain is estimated to affect up to 40% of the population each year35. It may persist over 10
years and consequently may be referred to physiotherapy, rheumatology and orthopaedic
departments. It is seen as the ‘poor cousin of low back pain’, has received much less attention by
way of research36, but has considerable economic importance. It accounts for 1% of total health
care expenditure and 0.1% of the Gross Domestic Product in the Netherlands37.
8.45 Most neck pain is mechanical/degenerative, but a substantial minority of individuals experience it
following road traffic accidents and in relation to work. As with low back pain, it is triaged into:
non-specific neck pain
neck pain with cord or nerve root compression
other diseases presenting as neck pain.
8.46 Trauma should be considered as an additional ‘red flag’ in view of the potential for missed
fractures and psychological morbidity38-40. For patients referred to the secondary sector,
comorbidity is a major factor, usually low back pain or another Musculoskeletal problem40.
8.47 Few good quality randomised controlled trials of neck pain management exist 3,36,41. One review
states “the only firm evidence is that acupuncture is not effective”3. Another36 found that the only
treatment for acute neck pain showing more lasting benefit than passive therapies is a home
exercise programme. There is some evidence to support manual therapy or manipulation42,43. It is
unlikely that there is a significant difference between manipulation offered by chiropractors or
physiotherapists44.
8.48 Recent studies have confirmed the place of strengthening exercises45-49 with only one study not
showing statistically significant improvements in pain scores50. There is some evidence that
exercises learned from a brochure without being monitored by physiotherapists are done less
effectively51. No difference was shown between intensive training, physiotherapy or manipulation
in a large study of patients with chronic neck pain52. However an active treatment programme of
proprioceptive exercises, relaxation and behavioural support is superior to a home exercise
programme, which in turn, is superior to advice alone53. Exercises are also effective for preventing
neck pain (as well as low back pain)54.
8.49 In those with ‘whiplash’ neck pain (following a road traffic accident), advice to continue to ‘act as
usual’ produces better outcomes than immobilisation and taking sick leave55.

Page 54 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Regional problems

8.50 As with low back pain, the risk for long-term sickness absence with neck pain was lowered nine-
fold with CBT when compared to information alone56.
8.51 Apart from the finding that Amitriptyline and Fluoxetine are both effective in the relief of
whiplash-associated pain57, there are no data on pharmacological interventions36.
8.52 There is some evidence that pillows that offer firm support for the neck lordosis58,59 or are water-
based60 are helpful. A systematic review of radiofrequency neurotomy61 concluded that there is
some evidence of the efficacy in relieving facet joint pain after flexion-extension injury. There is
some evidence to support electromagnetic therapy62.
8.53 There is limited evidence supporting the use of:
‘micro-breaks’ at work63
Botulinum Toxin-A64, 65
Thermo-magnetic cervical bandages66.
8.54 There is evidence on the lack of effectiveness of:
neck schools in preventing neck pain
collars
low-power laser therapy.
8.55 Currently many services lack:
speedy referral from primary care
priority of rehabilitation services in many acute trusts
psychological support for chronic pain services
multidisciplinary pain/rehabilitation programmes.
8.56 Well-co-ordinated services have triage policies constructed after discussion between the
orthopaedic, pain, physiotherapy, psychology and rheumatology services. This ensures that those
with:
‘red flags’ are triaged into the appropriate service
specific indications (eg root compression) see medical teams
complex chronic pain get appropriate psychological assessment and multidisciplinary therapy
employment difficulties are referred to the appropriate employment or charitable services and
suitable liaison occurs with employers when needed.
8.57 Such triage should take place within three months of onset of pain.
8.58 Sources of further information are given in Appendix 2.

The Shoulder

8.59 Shoulder problems are common, accounting for 5% of all GP consultations67 and a cumulative
annual incidence of between 7 and 25 per 1000 GP consultations68. The impact of shoulder pain
and limitation in movement can be considerable, affecting personal care (particularly ability to
wash and dress) as well as other aspects of lifestyle (household and work-related tasks). Amongst
older people, the development of shoulder pain and stiffness may trigger the loss of
independence69.
8.60 The shoulder is crucial to personal independence because of the role it plays in allowing the hand
to be positioned optimally for function. However, to achieve this, the shoulder must allow a huge
range of movement. This relies on the interaction of several different articulations: the gleno-
humeral joint (GHJ); the acromioclavicular joint; the sternoclavicular joint; and the rotation of the
scapula on the thoracic cage. In the GHJ in particular, this freedom of movement is achieved at the

BSRM Working Party Report Page 55

Regional problems Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

expense of stability. The latter is provided by the surrounding soft tissues rather than bony
congruity. These soft tissues may be injured by relatively minor trauma (falls, sporting injuries).
8.61 Following stroke associated with hemiparesis, vulnerability to damage from minor trauma may be
hugely increased by a number of interacting factors. Weakness of the rotator cuff musculature may
be associated with reduced (or increased) muscle tone allowing the humerus to ‘drop’ with gravity
or be pulled out of its normal alignment. Movement of the hemiparetic limb may be reduced by
weakness, poor coordination or reduced awareness of the hemiparetic side of the body. In these
circumstances the shoulder may stiffen. Other problems associated with stroke, such as difficulty
with communication may hamper the affected individual from alerting someone who is trying to
help him/her to discomfort in the shoulder during, say, lifting or handling.
8.62 As already indicated, shoulder problems are very common throughout the population. However in
those affected by stroke, over 60% are reported to develop shoulder pain within the first six
months following discharge from hospital after a stroke70. Shoulder pain delays functional
recovery and affects quality of life in stroke patients71. The key to successful management in the
stroke population is prevention by careful positioning and handling of the patient. Intervention
with local electrical neuromuscular stimulation has been advocated, but there is inadequate
evidence to judge its efficacy as a preventative strategy72.
8.63 In the majority of those presenting with shoulder pain to General Practice or Accident and
Emergency Departments, the pain resolves without serious consequences. However, those with
pain on elevation, rotation or lying on the shoulder require more specialist assessment, preferably
in a Shoulder Clinic with access to ultrasound and/or MR imaging and surgical intervention.
8.64 Examination and investigation must identify other possible diagnoses: referred pain from the neck;
inflammatory arthritis; polymyalgia rheumatica; referred pain from other internal organs; gross
structural or neurological abnormalities affecting the shoulder including complete rotator cuff
ruptures, previous fractures or dislocations. Inability to actively abduct the shoulder should raise
suspicion of a serious shoulder disruption.
8.65 A wide array of treatments has been tried but in general, evidence has been inconclusive about
their clinical and cost effectiveness.
8.66 Physiotherapy approaches were reviewed by van der Heijden et al73. They concluded that
ultrasound was ineffective and that trials of other physical treatment approaches (pulsed
electromagnetic fields, laser therapy, heat and cold treatment, exercise and mobilisations) were
inconclusive, usually because studies were carried out on small sample sizes and trial designs were
flawed. More recently, a Cochrane review by Green et al74 found some evidence to support the use
of exercise plus mobilisation for rotator cuff disease, laser therapy for adhesive capsulitis and
ultrasound for calcific tendinitis, but, like van der Heijden, commented on the poor methodology
and quality of trials to investigate physiotherapy interventions.
8.67 Intra-articular steroid injections were thought to yield better results, but a study of 207 subjects in
primary care with shoulder pain, randomised to either sub-acromial methylprednisolone (40mg) or
physiotherapy (advice, active shoulder exercises 8 times 20 minutes, home exercise programme -
additional manual therapy & ultrasound allowed) yielded few differences in outcome. Those
assigned to physiotherapy had fewer reconsultations and a (non-significantly) better outcome with
respect to disability at six months than those assigned to injections75.
8.68 In severe impingement or tear with severe symptoms, subacromial decompression and rotator cuff
repair may be indicated. Older age or large tears can give poor results. As with complete tears or
possible fracture, severe impingement needs urgent referral. Irrespective of whether surgery is
planned, the need for analgesia should not be under-estimated. For example, regular tramadol may
be required.
8.69 Between 50 and 60% of those presenting with shoulder pain recover within 12-18 months76 . For
the remainder, the resulting limitations and impact on lifestyle and independence need to be

Page 56 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Regional problems

recognised. Home and/or workplace adaptations can reduce the need to strain a painful and stiff
shoulder and an early OT referral should be considered.

References

1. Department for Work and Pensions. Pathways to work: helping people into employment. Cm
5690. London: Department for Work and Pensions, 2002.
2. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Employee absence 2002: a survey of
management policy and practice. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development,
2002.
3. Nachemson A, Carlsson CA, Englund L and Goossens M. Back and neck pain. Stockholm: The
Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU), 2000.
4. Maher C, Lattimer J, Refshaute K. Prescription of activity for low back pain: what works?
Austr J Physiother 1999;45:121-32.
5. Kool J, de Bie R, Oesch P, Knusel O, van den Brandt P, Bachmann S. Exercise reduces sick
leave in patients with non-acute non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis. J Rehabil Med
2004;36:49-62.
6. Buchbinder R, Jolley D, Wyatt M. Population based intervention to change back pain beliefs
and disability: three part evaluation. BMJ 2001;322:1516-20.
7. Carter, JT. and Birrell, LN. Occupational Health Guidelines for the management of low back
pain at work: evidence review and recommendations. London: Faculty of Occupational Medicine,
2000.
8. Roland MO, Waddell G, Klaber Moffett J, Burton AK, Main CJ, Cantrell T. The back book.
Norwich: The Stationary Office, 1996.
9. Curatolo MMD, Bogduk NMD. Pharmacologic Pain Treatment of Musculoskeletal Disorders:
Current Perspectives and Future Prospects. [Article]. Clin J Pain 2001;17:25-32.
10. Manniche C, Bendix T. Low-back pain: frequency, management and prevention for an HTA
perspective. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment, 1999.
11. Bronfort G. Spinal manipulation: current state of research and its indications. Neurol Clin
1999;17:91-111.
12. van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Conservative treatment of acute and chronic
nonspecific low back pain. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most
common interventions. Spine 1997;22:2128-56.
13. van Tulder MW, Cherkin DC, Berman D, Lao L, Koes BW. Acupuncture for low back pain
(Cochrane review). Oxford: Update Software: The Cochrane Library, 1999.
14. Milne S, Welch V., Brosseau L, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells G. Transcutaneous electrical nerve
stimulation (TENS) for chronic low back pain. The Cochrane Library, Oxford: Update Software,
2001.
15. Linton SJ, Hellsing A-L, Andersson D. A controlled study of the effects of an early
intervention on acute musculoskeletal back problems. Pain 1993;54:353-9.
16. Wiesel SW, Feffer HL, Rothman RH. Industrial low back pain: a prospective evaluation of a
standardized diagnostic and treatment protocol. Spine 1984;9:199-203.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 57

Regional problems Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

17.Fordyce WE, Brockway JA, Bergman JA, Spengler D. Acute back pain: a control-group
comparison of behavioural vs traditional management methods. J Behav Med. 1986;9:127-40.
18. Kendall N, Linton SJ, Main CJ. Guide to assessing psychosocial yellow flags in acute low
back pain: risk factors for long-term disability and work loss. Wellington, New Zealand: Accident
Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation of NZ and the National Health
Committee, 1997.
19. British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine. Vocational Rehabilitation - the way forward:
Report of a Working Party (Chair Frank AO). Second edition. London: British Society of
Rehabilitation Medicine, 2003.
20. Lindstrom I, Ohlund C, Eek C, Wallin L, Peterson L, Nachemson A. Mobility, strength, and
fitness after a graded activity program for patients with subacute low back pain. A randomised
prospective clinical study with a behavioural therapy approach. Spine 1992;17:641-9.
21. Klaber Moffett J, Torgerson D, Bell-Syer S, Jackson D, Llewlyn-Phillips H, Farrin A et al.
Randomised controlled trial of exercise for low back pain: clinical outcomes, costs, and
preferences. BMJ 1999;319:279-83.
22. Mitchell RI, Carmen GM. The functional restoration approach to the treatment of chronic pain
in patients with soft tissue and back injuries. Spine 1994;19:633-42.
23. van Tulder MW, Jellema P, van Poppel M, Nachemson AL, Bouter LM. Lumbar supports for
prevention and treatment of low back pain. The Cochrane Library, Oxford: Update Software,
2001.
24. Wiesel SW, Feffer HL, Borenstein DG. Evaluation and outcome of low back pain of unknown
etiology. Spine 1988;13:679-80.
25. Frank AO, De Souza LH, McAuley JH, Sharma V, Main CJ. A cross-sectional survey of the
clinical and psychological features of low back pain and consequent work handicap: use of the
Quebec Task Force Classification. Int J Clin Pract 2000;54:639-44.
26. Nelemans PJ, deBie RA, deVet H, Strumans F. Injection therapy for subacute and chronic
benign low back pain (Cochrane Review). Spine 2001;26:501-15.
27. van Tulder MW, Ostelo R, Vlaeyen J, Linton SJ, Morley SJ, Assendelft W. Behavioral
treatment for chronic low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane
Back Review Group. Spine 2000;26:270-81.
28. Gatchel RJ, Polatin PB, Mayer TG, Garcy PD. Psychopathology and the rehabilitation of
patients with chronic low back pain disability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:666-70.
29. Harkapaa K, Mellin G, Jarvikoski A, Hurri H. A controlled study on the outcome of inpatient
and outpatient treatment of low back pain. Scand J Rehabil Med 1990;22:181-8.
30. Mayer TG, McMahon MJ, Gatchel RJ, Sparks B, Wright A, Peques P. Socio-economic
outcomes of combined spinal surgery and functional restoration in workers compensation spinal
disorders with matched controls. Spine 1998;23:598-606.
31. Bendix AF, Bendix T, Haestrup C, Busch E. A prospective randomised 5 year follow-up study
of functional restoration in chronic low back pain patients. Eur Spine J 1998;7:111-9.
32.Alaranta H, Rytokoski U, Rissanen A, Talo S, Ronnemaa T, Puukka P et al. Intensive physical
and psychosocial training program for patients with chronic low back pain. A controlled clinical
trial. Spine 1994;19:1339-49.
33. Main CJ, Burton AK. Economic and occupational influences on pain and disability. In Main
CJ, Spanswick CC, eds. Pain management: an interdisciplinary approach, pp 63-87. Edinburgh:
Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
34. Ariëns GAM, Borghouts J, Koes BW. Neck pain. In Crombie IK, Croft PR, Linton SJ,
LeResche L, Von Korff M, eds. Epidemiology of pain, 235-55. Seattle: IASP Press, 2003.

Page 58 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Regional problems

35. Bogduk N. The neck. Best Practice & Research in Clinical Rheumatology. 1999;13:261-85.
36. Borghouts J, Koes BW, Vondeling H, Bouter LM. Cost of illness of neck pain in The
Netherlands in 1996. Pain 1999;80:629-36.
37. Frank AO. Psychiatric consequences of road traffic accidents - often disabling and
unrecognised. BMJ 1993;307:1283.
38. Mayou R, Bryant B, Duthie R. Psychiatric consequences of road traffic accidents. BMJ
1993;307:647-51.
39. Frank AO, De Souza LH and Frank CA. Neck pain and disability: a cross-sectional survey of
the demographic and clinical characteristics of neck pain seen in a rheumatology clinic. Int J Clin
Pract – in press.
40. Mior S. Exercise in the treatment of chronic pain. [Review] [27 refs]. Clin J Pain.
2001;17:Suppl-85.
41. Heikkila H, Johansson M, Wenngren BI. Effects of acupuncture, cervical manipulation and
NSAID therapy on dizziness and impaired head repositioning of suspected cervical origin: a pilot
study. Manual Ther. 2000;5:151-7.
42. Hoving JL, Koes BW, Bart W, de Vet H, van der Windt D, Assendelft W et al. Manual
therapy, physical therapy, or continued care by a General Practitioner for patients with neck pain:
a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Int Med 2002;136:713-22.
43. Skargren EI, Oberg BE, Carlsson PG, Gade M. Cost and effectiveness analysis of chiropractic
and physiotherapy treatment for low back and neck pain: a six-month follow-up. Spine
1997;22:2167-77.
44. Ahlgren C, Waling K, Kadi F, Djupsjöbacka M, Thornell LE, Sundelin G. Effects on physical
performance and pain from three dynamic training programs for women with work-related
trapezius myalgia. J Rehabil Med 2001;33:162-9.
45. Waling K, Järvholm B, Sundelin G. Effects of training on female trapezius Myalgia: An
intervention study with a 3-year follow-up period. Spine 2002;27:789-96.
46. Bronfort G, Evans R, Nelson B, Aker PD, Goldsmith CH, Vernon H. A randonized clinical
trial of exercise and spinal manipulation for patients with chronic neck pain. Spine 2001; 26:798-9.
47. Hagberg M, Harms-ringdahl K, Nisell R, Hjelm EW. Rehabilitation of neck-shoulder pain in
women industrial workers: a randomized trial comparing isometric shoulder endurance training
with isometric shoulder strength training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81:1051-8.
48. Oldervoll LM, Ro M, Zwart JA, Svebak S. Comparison of two physical exercise programs for
the early intervention of pain in the neck, shoulders and lower back in female hospital staff. J
Rehabil Med 2001;33:156-61.
49. Randlov A, Ostergaard M, Manniche C, Kryger P, Jordan A, Heegaard S et al. Intensive
dynamic training for females with chronic neck / shoulder pain. A randomized controlled trial.
Clin Rehabil 1998;12:200-10.
50. Friedrich M, Cermak T, Maderbacher P. The effects of brochure use versus therapist teaching
on patients performing therapeutic exercise and on changes in impairment status. Phys Ther
1996;76:1082-8.
51. Jordan A, Bendix T, Nielsen H, Hansen FR, Host D, Winkel A. Intensive training,
physiotherapy, or manipulation for patients with chronic neck pain. A prospective, single-blinded,
randomized clinical trial [comment]. Spine 1998;23:311-8.
52. Taimela S, Takala EP, Asklöf T, Seppälä K, Parviainen S. Active treatment of chronic neck
pain: a prospective randomized intervention. Spine 2000;25:1021-7.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 59

Regional problems Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

53. Linton SJ,.van Tulder MW. Preventive interventions for back and neck pain problems: what is
the evidence? Spine 2001;26:778-87.
54. Borchgrevink GE, Kaasa A, McDonagh D, Stiles TC, Haraldseth O, Lereim I. Acute treatment
of whiplash neck sprain injuries: a randomised trial of treatment during the first 14 days after a car
accident. Spine 1998;23:25-31.
55. Linton SJ,.Andersson T. Can chronic disability be prevented? a randomised trial of a
cognitive-behaviour intervention and two forms of information for patients with spinal pain. Spine
2000;25:2825-31.
56. Schreiber S, Vinokur S, Shavelzon V, Pick CG, Zahavi E, Shir Y. A randomised trial of
Fluoxetine versus amitriptyline in Musculoskeletal pain. Israel J Psych Rel Sci 2001;38:88-94.
57. Ambrogio N, Cuttiford J, Lineker S, Li L. A comparison of three types of neck support in
fibromyalgia patients. Arthr Care Res. 1998;11:405-10.
58. Persson L,.Moritz U. Neck support pillows: a comparative study. J Manip Physiol Ther
1998;21:237-40.
59. Lavin RA, Pappagallo M, Kuhlemeier KV. Cervical pain: a comparison of three pillows. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78:193-8.
60. Geurts JW, van Wijk RM, Stolker RJ, Groen GJ. Efficacy of radiofrequency procedures for the
treatment of spinal pain: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.[comment]. Reg Anaesth
Pain Med. 2001;26:394-400.
61. Gross AR, Aker PD, Goldsmith CH, Peloso P. Physical Medicine modalities for mechanical
neck disorders. Oxford: Update Software, 2002.
62. Mclean L, Tingley M, Scott RN, Rickards J. Computer terminal work and the benefit of
microbreaks. App Ergonom. 2001;32:225-37.
63.Wheeler AH, Goolkasian P, Gretz SS. Botulinum toxin A for the treatment of chronic neck
pain. Pain 2001;94:255-60.
64.Freund BJ,.Schwartz M. Treatment of whiplash associated neck pain [corrected] with
botulinum toxin-A: a pilot study.[comment][erratum appears in J Rheumatol 2000
Jun;27(6):1577]. J Rheumatol 2000;27:481-4.
65. Porzio F. Use of thermomagnetic bandages and belts in cervical and lumber pain syndromes.
Experimental study with double blind method versus placebo. Clin Terapeutica 2002;151:149-53.
66. Clinical Standards Advisory Group - Chairman Prof. M Rosen. Back Pain. London: HMSO,
1994.
67. Peters et al. Br J Gen Pract 1994 ;44:25-9.
68. Badley EM , Tennant A. Changing profile of joint disorders with age: findings from a
postal survey of the population of Calderdale, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom. Ann
Rheum Dis 1992; 51:366-371.
69. Cunningham DA, Paterson DH, Himann JE, Rechnitzer PA. Determinants of independence in
the elderly. Can J. Appl. Physiol 1993;18(3):243–254.
70. Wanklyn P, Forster A, Young J. Hemiplegic shoulder pain (HSP): natural history and
investigation of associated features. Disabil Rehab 1996;18:497–501.
71. Roy CW, Sands MR, Hill LD, Harisson A, Marshall S. The effect of shoulder pain on
outcome of acute hemiplegia. Clin Rehab 1995;9:21-27.
72. Price CIM, Pandyan AD. Electrical stimulation for preventing and treating post-stroke
shoulder pain (review). The Cochrane database of Systematic reviews 2004;2:1-14.

Page 60 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Regional problems

73. Van der Heijden GJMG, van der Windt DAWM, de Winter AF. Physiotherapy for patients
with soft tissue shoulder disorders: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials.
1997;315(7099):25-30.
74. Green S, Buchbinder R, Hetrick S. Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain (review).
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2004;2: 1-58.
75. Hay EM, Thomas E, Paterson SM, Dziedzic K, Croft PR A pragmatic randomised controlled
trial of local corticosteroid injection and physiotherapy for the treatment of new episodes of
unilateral shoulder pain in primary care. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62: 394-9.
76. Winters JC, Sobel JS, Groenier KH, Arendzen JH, Meyboom-de Jong B. The long-term
course of shoulder complaints: a prospective study in general practice. Rheumatology
1999;38:160-163.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 61

Regional problems Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Page 62 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Soft tissue injury

9. Soft tissue injury

Summary

9.1 Soft tissue injuries are very common, accounting for 5% of Accident & Emergency (A&E)
consultations and a significant proportion of General Practitioner (GP) consultations. Commonest
sites of injury are the ankle (5,000 per day in UK), neck (250,000 per annum) and shoulder. Whilst
spontaneous recovery is to be expected in the majority of cases, a minority will have persistent or
recurrent problems leading to pain and disability, affecting work and lifestyle.
9.2 Initial assessment should be followed by triage into those:
who need advice, a programme of exercises to mobilise or stabilise the affected area, and a
contact point in case of further problems
who need specialist assessment and investigations
who require expert assessment to determine whether immobilisation or surgical repair is
required.
9.3 Protection, Rest, Ice, Compression, Elevation, (PRICE) is recommended for the first 72 hours to
alleviate early inflammation. However, this needs to be followed by a carefully coordinated
programme of rehabilitation that encourages mobilisation and addresses risk factors (eg
vulnerability to falls in the elderly), thus reducing the likelihood of chronicity.

Introduction

9.4 A soft tissue injury (STI) is a disruption in the structural integrity of skin, fascia, muscle, tendon or
ligament that occurs due to a single instance of trauma or due to the cumulative effects of repeated
micro trauma resulting in pain and functional impairment1. Published work on STI indicates that:
it is the most commonly sustained pathology in sport, recreation and during activities of daily
living
such injuries account for 5% of all presentations at A&E departments
it impacts on persons of all ages and activity levels and presents in a wide range of ways
it has significant cost implications to both individuals and the state.
9.5 The overriding aims of STI management should be:
to provide effective early management of the injury and thus maximise recovery of function
to minimise the socio-economic costs of lost working days (not necessarily paid employment)
and prolonged morbidity.
9.6 The majority of publications in this field focus on sports-related soft tissue injury and injury
following road traffic accidents (RTA). There is a paucity of literature addressing the management
of children, the elderly or those sustaining a soft tissue injury during normal activities and for all
groups further research is required into the long-term outcomes of interventions.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 63

Soft tissue injury Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

9.7 This chapter presents an outline of the management of soft tissue injuries. Current service delivery
is discussed and the following areas are briefly considered to present a rationale for suggested
changes to this:
nature and location of the presenting condition
nature and timing of intervention
management pathways
9.8 The natural history of acute soft tissue injury is spontaneous recovery in most cases. A small
number will need treatment to:
promote healing
relieve pain
prevent contractures
rehabilitate to restore function.
9.9 Medical practitioners, patients and carers need to be aware of the most appropriate management
and how it should be accessed. To be effective the choice of treatment and timing of intervention
should be influenced by the physiological and biomechanical properties of the injured tissue
during the three overlapping phases of soft tissue repair and remodelling. Inappropriate
management is the biggest risk factor in sustaining a new or recurrent injury1. Problems such as
instability, proprioceptive disturbance and muscle weakness predispose an individual to
recurrence1. To ensure optimal conditions for the body’s healing any underlying pathology such
as osteoarthritis or predisposing factors such as recurrent falls need addressing to prevent
initiating, prolonging or sustaining the inflammatory process.

Management

9.10 The majority of individuals will either self manage or seek medical advice from their GP or A&E
department. Others will seek advice from physiotherapists, exercise specialists, osteopaths or
chiropractors privately, in their place of work or sports club.
9.11 A number of methods for STI classification have been used to guide management. These may rely
on aetiology or perceived severity2, but, in practice, these may be difficult to use since they may
be reliant on a pathological diagnosis which is not immediately available. However, some general
principles can be used to guide management. Although the severity of the condition will largely
determine initial management, this should also be influenced by:
the characteristics (eg age) and specific needs of the subject
predisposing conditions
locally agreed protocols and management pathways
availability of services.

Management options

9.12 Where there is no functional problem it is appropriate to self-manage2. Indeed, it is likely that
many of these patients will not present to a medical practitioner at all and those who do present are
likely to be discharged with advice.
9.13 This group require the following information:
appropriate advice to progress to full function eg exercises
details on the nature of the condition and predicted recovery
when and where to seek help should the problem not resolve.

Page 64 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Soft tissue injury

9.14 Information should be:

widely accessible ie from NHS Direct, sports and leisure clubs, GP, A&E and other local
services
available in a range of suitable formats
consistent
evidence-based
agreed by all those involved with patient care.
9.15 Those who present for medical advice following a STI which interferes with function are likely to
present to their GP, A&E or an independent practitioner and will require:
early and appropriate diagnosis and treatment
access to specialist care, probably in an orthopaedic or fracture clinic
access for further investigations and management or supervised rehabilitation as indicated.
9.16 Patients with severe injuries will typically present via A&E and require:
identification of those requiring immediate tissue repair or immobilisation
access to an orthopaedic specialist for an assessment and intervention as indicated.
9.17 A range of options for intervention have been advocated once the initial problem has been
managed.
9.18 Protection, Rest, Ice, Compression, Elevation, (PRICE) has been endorsed by the Chartered
Society of Physiotherapy for use during the first 72 hours2.
9.19 Modalities recommended for use in conjunction with PRICE include:
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
electrotherapeutic modalities
manual therapy
taping
rehabilitation2
peri-articular and intra-articular injections3.
9.20 The therapeutic value for corticosteroid injection in certain peripheral soft tissue conditions has
been shown to be good, but is associated with high rates of recurrence4.
9.21 Movement is considered to be crucial to the healing of soft tissues and should form part of
treatment. Mobilisation guided by pain responses promotes return to full functional recovery.
Progressive resistance exercises are helpful to restore muscle and joint function. Rehabilitation is
only complete when injured and adjacent tissues are restored to full pain free functional capacity .
A programme of supervised rehabilitation should address each of these factors.

Soft tissue injuries around the ankle

9.22 The most common STIs amongst those attending their GP or A&E department are those affecting
the ankle. It is a very common injury in sport5. The injury can be graded I-III according to
severity6. The outline of management is:
assess severity of injury
note swelling, bruising, ability to weight bear, and signs of instability
determine grade of injury and most appropriate location of treatment.
avoid chronic ankle instability

BSRM Working Party Report Page 65

Soft tissue injury Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Grade I
mild swelling, pain or tenderness
can weight bear
early, spontaneous recovery.
9.23 Those in this group are likely to self-treat if progress is clear. Those who seek advice should be
given information regarding self-management, circumstances in which further help should be
sought and prognosis. Persistent pain or difficulty weight-bearing should prompt seeking
secondary help.

Grade II
persistent severe pain, swelling and difficulty weight bearing
needs skilled assessment of injury.
exclude instability and syndesmosis defect7
treatment: rest, ice, compression , elevation (RICE )6
may need period of protected mobilisation
can be treated in A&E or Primary Care.
9.24 This group are likely to seek clinical advice and should be offered supervised rehabilitation
following assessment.

Grade III
more serious symptoms with probable instability of the joint
protected weight bearing with controlled rehabilitation
in severe cases immobilisation or surgical stabilisation
needs skilled hospital care by physiotherapy and orthopaedic team.
9.25 In general early mobilisation is the aim8, 9. Recurrence rates can be high10,11. This can be reduced
by specific care, eg physiotherapy using wobble boards to develop ankle stability12. Up to 50% of
those with ankle sprains will continue to have chronic symptoms . These will need specialist
assessment and treatment. It must be hoped that better care of the initial injury, as described in the
Ottawa Ankle Rules13 will reduce this number.

Service limitations

9.26 The main limitations in current services are:

insufficient capacity to respond rapidly to the demand
poor dissemination of information, particularly regarding self-assessment and self-management
variation in clinical protocols, both between locations and between professional groups.

Conclusion

9.27 Although STIs are common, their management remains very variable, and outcomes are difficult
to predict because of a dirth of published evidence on which to base management principles.
9.28 Perhaps because of their name, STIs are often regarded as innocuous and of little lasting effect.
Whilst it is true that many such injuries resolve without long-term functional implications,
persistence and/or recurrence of symptoms is a problem.
9.29 At present, NHS services are patchy in quality and overstretched, and there is a clear need for extra
resources and staff training. Agreed guidelines for management of common injuries should be
established and include ‘red flag’ warnings. There should be easy access and agreed care pathways
to allow seamless care between Primary Care, A&E and the Trauma and Orthopaedic departments.

Page 66 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Soft tissue injury

Clear information should be available to those injured, whether attending these services or self–
managing.
9.30 Rehabilitation of injury is given much less prominence than is required for good practice. It is as
important as any other aspect of care and essential in completion of all other treatments. A skilled
physiotherapy service with staff acting in extended roles and in the correct locations should make
a major difference to outcome14, 15.

Table 9.1
Soft tissue injury classification (Kerr et al, 19982)

Degree of Pathology Objective findings

Severity
The result of; mild stretch of Minimal swelling and bruising
First ligament or capsular structures, Mild pain at the end of range of movement or on stretch or
over-stretch or direct blow to contraction of muscle.
muscle No joint instability, minimal muscle spasm and no loss of
function.

A tearing of some fibres as a Moderate swelling and bruising

Second result of: Moderate pain felt on any movement which interferes with
moderate stretch of ligament or the ability of the muscle to contract or lengthen.
capsular structures May be some joint instability with ligament/capsular injuries
or excessive stretch or direct blow and muscle injuries.
to muscle Interference with function due to the tearing of some fibres
and a decrease in the tensile strength of ligament/capsule or
a decrease in the contractile strength of muscle.

Complete tear of the injured Significant swelling and bruising with severe pain even at
Third structure as a result of: rest which significantly interferes with function.
severe overstretch, or excessive Ligament injuries result in gross instability and significant
stretch or direct blow to muscle decrease in tensile strength, with muscle injuries causing
severe muscle spasm and ‘splinting’, while the injured
muscle is incapable of exerting force.
Function is severely impaired.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 67

Soft tissue injury Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

References
1. Hudak PL, Cole DC, Frank JW. Perspectives on prognosis of soft tissue musculoskeletal
disorders. Int J of Rehab Res 1998. 21(1):29-40.
2. Kerr K, Daley L, Booth L, Stark J (1998) Guidelines for the management of soft tissue (injury)
with Protection, Rice, Ice, Compression, Elevation (PRICE during the first 72 hours. Chartered
Society of Physiotherapy, London.
3. Baker R, Cameron G, Longworth S, Mallion C, Saunders S, Shacklady C, 1999. A clinical
guideline for the use of injection therapy by physiotherapists. The Chartered Society of
Physiotherapy, London.
4. May (2000) PCG and CHCS project - Guidelines for Physiotherapy - Musculoskeletal
conditions in Primary Care, CHCS(Nth Derby) NHS Trust/Chesterfield PCG.
5. Garrick JG, Requa RK. The epidemiology of foot and ankle injuries in sports. Clinics in
Podiatric Medicine & Surgery 1989. 6(3):629-37.
6. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Jarvinen TL, Jarvinen TA, Jarvinen M. Basic science and clinical studies
coincide: active treatment approach is needed after a sports injury. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine & Science in Sports 2003. 13(3):150-4.
7. Boytim MJ, Fischer DA, Neumann L. Syndesmotic Ankle sprains. American Journal of
Sports Medicine 1991. 19(3):294-8.
8. Shrier I. Treatment of lateral collateral ligament sprains of the ankle: A critical appraisal of the
literature. Clinical J Sports Med 1995; 5:187-195.
9. Kerkhoffs GM, Rowe BH, Assendelft WJ, Kelly KD, Struijs PA, van Dijk CN. Immobilisation
for acute ankle sprain. A systematic review. Archives of Orthopaeic & Trauma Surgery 2001.
121(8):462-71.
10. Ogilvie-Harris DJ, Gilbart M. Treatment modalities for soft tissue injuries of the ankle: a
critical review. Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine1995. (5(3):175-86.
11. Tropp H, Askling C, Gillquist J. Prevention of ankle sprains. American Journal of Sports
Medicine 1985;13(4):259-62.
12. Wester JU, Jesperson SM, Nielsen KD, Neumann L. Wobble board training after partial
sprains of the lateral ligaments of the ankle: a prospective randomised study. JOSPT 1996 23:332-
336.
13. Bachmann LM, Kolb E, Koller MT, Steurer J, ter Riet G. Accuracy of Ottawa ankle rules to
exclude fractures of the ankle and mid-foot systematic review. BMJ 2000; 326(7386):417.
14. Hackett GI, Bundred P, Hutton JL, O’Brien J, Stanley IM. Management of joint and soft
tissue injuries in three general practices: value of on-site physiotherapy. British Journal of
General Practice 1993; 43(367):61-4.
15. Byles SE, Ling RSM. Orthopaedic out-patients- a fresh approach. Physiotherapy 1989;
75:435-437.

Page 68 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Other soft tissue problems

10. Other soft tissue problems

Summary

10.1 Hypermobility of joints is a common but often overlooked cause of rheumatic symptoms.
10.2 Affected individuals may require physiotherapy focussed on exercises to strengthen the muscles
around the loosest joints and stabilise them. The judicious use of stabilising orthoses may also be
useful to facilitate function and project excessively mobile joints from secondary damage.
Analgesics are helpful, particularly if taken before activities that strain the joints.
10.3 People with hypermobile joints may need vocational advice to minimise the risk of (further) joint
problems at work. There is an increased prevalence of hypermobility (due to self-selection)
amongst certain professional groups, notably sportsmen and women and performing artists; these
may be at increased risk of soft tissue and joint injury.
10.4 Whilst these factors may also play a role in the development of work-related Musculoskeletal
disorders, the nature of mechanical demands placed on the worker and certain work-related
psychological factors certainly influence the likelihood of developing such problems. Task
analysis, appropriate provision of information and support is effective in prevention and
management of these work-related disorders.
10.5 Performance or sports placing unusual demands on posture and stamina and repetitive movements
(eg during practice prior to a competition or performance) may also trigger injuries. Over-use
syndromes, nerve entrapments, dystonias and spinal pain, are all seen in sports/performance
related problems and early degenerative disease may occur particularly if soft tissue injury has led
to joint instability.
10.6 Rest alone will not prevent recurrence (and may not be an acceptable option if income depends on
continued performance); modification of technique and practice regimes are needed.

Joint hypermobility

Introduction

10.7 The range of movement at a given joint varies with a Gaussian distribution throughout the
population. A small proportion at one end will have joints that are particularly ‘supple’1. They
may consider themselves double-jointed. A small proportion at the opposite end will have joints
that are capable of only limited movement, though since these are less susceptible to injury, this
has been less well studied. Scoring systems exist to determine the extent to which hypermobility
is present2, 3. Generally a score of 7/9 would be regarded as abnormal in childhood, 5/9 in a
younger adult and 2/9 or 3/9 would be regarded as abnormal over the age of 503. However, such
abnormal scores do not have a clear relationship to resulting disability, which in some individuals
may be determined by the involvement of only one or two joints. In some with generalised
hypermobility, involvement of other organs may occur (eg incompetence of the heart valves) and
the recently introduced Brighton scoring system takes account of this, superceding the earlier
Beighton modification of the Carter and Wilkinson scoring system4.
10.8 Perhaps of greater clinical relevance is consideration of the anatomical and physiological features
that have caused joint hypermobility. These comprise the shape of the bony articulating surfaces
(almost entirely inherited), the structure of the collagen that forms the joint capsule and ligaments

BSRM Working Party Report Page 69

Other soft tissue problems Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

(in large part inherited though also subject to stretching, which is acquired), the neuromuscular
tone (largely acquired though some inherited as in Down’s syndrome) and, most recently
recognised, joint proprioception. In any one individual several of these pathogenetic factors
contribute, often at quite separate sites.
10.9 The majority of patients with joint hypermobility are classified as having ‘benign joint
hypermobility syndrome’. A small minority have more serious and usually easily identifiable
inherited abnormalities of connective tissue that are sometimes associated with hypermobility such
as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, Marfan’s syndrome and osteogenesis imperfecta5-7. These more rare
conditions are outside the scope of this chapter.

Clinical features

10.10 The principal symptom is of pain, particularly at the lax joints and often (though not exclusively)
after their use or exercise. However, patients are also aware of joint instability leading to difficult
or inefficient use of the joint and rendering them susceptible to injury, so joint stabilisation is
normally a second priority.
10.11 In the absence of adequate joint control, more serious injury may occur. Providing the collagen is
not too abnormal this is likely to be a tear, perhaps of the joint capsule, leading to subluxation but
eventually healing by fibrosis, though sometimes with inadequate scar formation. If the collagen
is more seriously involved, subluxation will be accompanied not by a tear but by a deforming
stretch of the collagen (comparable to a deflated balloon), which is less likely to heal. Sometimes
bony fracture on minimal trauma occurs and recently patients with joint hypermobility have been
shown to have higher incidence of osteopenia (perhaps even implying some overlap with
osteogenesis imperfecta) and an increased frequency of respiratory symptoms, particularly those
resembling asthma. It is not yet certain whether these problems result from collapse of collagen
structures in the lung or are indicative of a more basic abnormality in endothelia, common to both
conditions.
10.12 Hypermobile subjects often display sporting prowess, particularly for sports requiring substantial
joint flexibility such as gymnastics, though it is important to control the range of movement to
avoid injury and the participation of hypermobile subjects in team sports can be problematic. Joint
hypermobility may also be advantageous to musicians and dancers, a topic dealt with elsewhere8.

Management

10.13 Frequently the joint laxity is not recognised by physicians as the cause of symptoms. Patients may
therefore be passed from one doctor to another in search of a diagnosis. Once the diagnosis is
established, reassurance should be given. The Arthritis Research Campaign provides a useful
information booklet and the Hypermobility Syndrome Association has a useful and comprehensive
website (www.hypermobility.org).
10.14 Analgesics may be helpful. The mildest should be used first, with attention to half-life since often
exercise or activity causes symptoms of hypermobile joints so rational therapy is the use of an
analgesic of short half-life a little time before the offending activity.
10.15 Paracetamol is safest and available over the counter for ‘as required’ dosing up to a maximum of 8
tablets/day. Compound generic analgesics such as Co-proxamol, Co-codamol and Co-dydramol
(probably prescribed in that order) represent the next step. If there is a substantial inflammatory
component as judged by the presence of an effusion after trauma, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs of short half-life may also be used, though these carry more side effects. The risk of side
effects is less if these are given by the more expensive topical formulation. Sometimes there is
still a need to resort to more potent analgesics such as meptazinol or tramadol.
10.16 Comprehensive assessment by a physiotherapist with experience of this condition is invaluable. A
variety of physiotherapy remedies have been suggested, some to relieve pain but the majority to

Page 70 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Other soft tissue problems

stabilise lax joints by increasing muscle power through the use of isometric exercises9, 10. This is
particularly effective with ball and socket joints such as the shoulder and hip. Occasionally a
normal joint that has stiffened in compensation may need to be loosened by stretching. This is
more easily accomplished than stabilisation. The recent demonstration that joint proprioception is
impaired in hypermobile joints (compared to age and sex matched controls) has stimulated
physiotherapy interest in methods of enhancing proprioception. This has already been shown to
improve the healing of traumatic stretching injuries of the ankle joint11.
10.17 Occupational therapy also has a role12, 13. An ergonomic assessment is invaluable in keeping these
patients at work, which has substantial psychological benefit. Orthoses may be appropriate at
severely affected joints, particularly to stabilise them during use, though the continuous use of
orthoses for longer periods may produce harmful muscle wasting. However, some joints are
difficult to stabilise orthotically, particularly the shoulder where stability is so dependent on
muscle strength and integrity. Upper limb orthoses or slings can be used, but compromise upper
limb function to such an extent that they are seldom acceptable for longer-term use. The value of
the multidisciplinary team, including nurses and psychologists, is also established in alleviating
persistent intractable pain.
10.18 Usually these simple measures suffice but where disability is still prolonged, surgical intervention
might be considered. There are a variety of operations available (eg to re-track patellae that
sublux) and recently most interest has been directed in laser capsular shrinkage, currently the
subject of controlled trials.

Work-related upper limb disorders

10.19 Work-related upper limb disorders (WRULD) have been given a number of different names
including ‘repetitive strain injury’. Both terms are misleading, since both imply a distinct
aetiology. In fact, upper limb pain associated with impaired function, weakness, cramp and muscle
tenderness for which no clear-cut diagnosis or pathology can be identified, is not related
exclusively to repetitive movements or to work. Such symptoms are found in 10-20% of the
general population. Increased incidences reported in industry in the 1980’s and early 90’s may
well reflect increased awareness and litigation in this area.
10.20 Risk factors include mechanical factors (tasks which require a the worker to generate a high force,
often in an abnormal posture, or require frequent repetition). There may well be an interplay
between these and patient characteristics influencing their vulnerability to eg ligamentous injury or
stretch, muscle fatigue or nerve entrapment syndromes.
10.21 However, as with low back pain, psychological factors have also been shown to contribute. These
include need to carry out tasks which are monotonous, where the worker feels pressured, feels
he/she lacks control over the character and pace of work and feels unsupported.
10.22 Certain principles have proved effective in industry as strategies for prevention and management.
These include:
acknowledgement of risk
detailed assessment of tasks
forewarning workers of risk situations and warning them that problems may arise particularly
during the first 2 weeks of a new job
rapid response to any symptoms.

Musculoskeletal problems in musicians and performing artists

10.23 Performing artists fall prey to a variety of Musculoskeletal problems. These are not unique in
themselves but result from the unusual demands that they place on the neural, muscle, tendon and

BSRM Working Party Report Page 71

Other soft tissue problems Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

joint structures of their bodies. Epidemiological data are unfortunately lacking, due to a reluctance
on the part of performers to admit to problems which could potentially jeopardise their future
employability. However, figures suggest that up to three-quarters of musicians suffer from
Musculoskeletal problems at some stage in their career14. Women and school-aged performers are
especially affected15-19.
10.24 In musicians, problems mostly arise in the upper limbs, neck and back, and arise from the
repetitive movements of playing, together with prolonged muscular effort of supporting the weight
of the instrument – often in an unnatural position20. Playing conditions are often cramped and
poorly lit, and individual susceptibility is also determined by posture, technique, body habitus and
joint laxity21. Any change of practice or playing habit, such as a change of instrument or playing
style, may introduce unaccustomed strain on the Musculoskeletal system and result in symptoms.
Stress and competition introduce a further challenge, often prompting a step-up in practice and
rehearsal time.
10.25 In other performing artists such as ballet dancers22, cardiovascular fitness is crucial and the major
demand is on the lower limbs and trunk, demanding stamina and strength. Flexibility is a key
attribute so that dancers are self-selected for joint laxity, and further damage their particular soft
tissues by over-stretching. Injuries to the ankle and foot are particularly common23.
10.26 Both groups function in a highly competitive environment. They require precise neuromuscular
control; even the slightest impairment may be sufficient to reduce their standard such that they can
no longer compete with their rivals and lose their place in the ranking24. The resulting loss of
confidence and self-esteem further diminishes their performance, and very quickly leads to loss of
livelihood. This in turn produces social, financial and emotional consequences.
10.27 A list of common problems experienced by musicians and performing artists is given in
Table 10.1. It should be remembered that not all injuries are occupation-related. Sports-related and
other injuries also occur in musicians.
10.28 The majority of these conditions are common in the general population. However the approach to
their management needs to differ in performing artists in a number of ways.
10.29 While the key to over-use injuries may be rest, rest is not an option for most performing artists.
The majority are self-employed – if they don’t work, they can’t pay the bills21. A compromise
must be reached, and a programme of graded activity agreed upon.
10.30 In addition, rest by itself will not solve the problem, it is necessary to understand its causation and
take active steps to avoid recurrence when activity is resumed. The clinician must either have a
detailed understanding of the technical demands of that particular instrument or activity, or must
work with someone (for example a teacher or trainer) who does24. They must be able to observe
the individual performing, identify the movements which appear to precipitate the problem (video
analysis may help), and by bringing them to the attention of the individual and their teacher help
them to find technical solutions.
10.31 Physical and occupational therapists should also have expertise in the management of performers’
injuries. They should be aware of the likelihood of hypermobility and the need to retain this for
functional playing. Restrictive splints are rarely useful except to support the joint in non-artistic
activities.
10.32 Except in very unusual circumstances, surgical intervention rarely results in functional restoration
and should be avoided unless clearly indicated – eg for entrapment, ganglion cysts, compartment
syndromes etc.
10.33 In turn, the performer must understand that there is unlikely to be a magical solution to their
problem. Its resolution will require their commitment and self-discipline as much as the skills of
the treating clinicians.

Page 72 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Other soft tissue problems

10.34 The onset of Musculoskeletal problems has ended the career of many great musicians. Early
proactive management is crucial, but even then is not always successful. Appropriate career
planning from an early stage may help to develop non-performing aspects of their work which will
carry them into the future when performing opportunities evade them.

Table 10.1

Common Musculoskeletal problems experienced by musicians and performing artists

Musicians

Nerve compression or compartment syndromes – due to entrapment by hypertrophied muscles or traction

from unnatural playing postures
Tendinitis – due to repetitive strain injuries
Over-use syndromes – almost always accompany a change in practice regimen.
Soft tissue injury – eg rotator cuff tears in the bowing arms of string players
Osteoarthritis – degenerative change due to excessive load and wear
Focal motor dystonias – specific local disorders of movement occurring only when playing the instrument
Hypermobility – generalised and specific acquired joint laxity due to excessive traction
Spinal pain – neck and upper thoracic spine – due to posture and muscular tension

Other performing artists

Ligamentous injuries – ankle, knee, groin

Hypermobility – generalised and specific acquired joint laxity due to excessive traction
Osteoarthritis – degenerative change due to excessive load and wear
Tendinitis – due to repetitive strain injuries

BSRM Working Party Report Page 73

Other soft tissue problems Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

References
1. Wood PHN. Is hypermobility a discrete entity? Proc Roy Soc Med, 1971; 64:690-2.
2. Carter C, Wilkinson J. Persistent joint laxity and congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Jt
Surg (Br), 1964; 46:40-5.
3. Beighton PH, Solomon L, Soskolne CL. Articular mobility in an African population. Ann
Rheum Dis, 1973; 32:413-8.
4. Grahame R, Bird HA, Child A. The revised (Brighton 1998) criteria for the diagnosis of
benign joint hypermobility syndrome (BJHS). J Rheumatol, 2000; 27(7):1777-9.
5. Beighton PH, De Paepe A, Steinmann B, Tsipouras P, Wenstrup RJ. Ehlers-Danlos syndromes:
revised nosology, Villefranche. Am J Med Gen, 1997; 77:31-7.
6. Beighton PH, Price A, Lord J, Dickson E. Variants of the Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. Clinical,
chemical, haematological and chromosomal features of 100 patients. Ann Rheum Dis, 1969; 28:
228-40.
7. Grahame R. Heritable disorders of connective tissue. Best Pract & Res in Clin Rheumatol,
2000; 14(2):345-61.
8. Grahame R, Jenkins JM. Joint hypermobility – asset or liability. Ann Rheum Dis, 1972; 31:
109-11.
9. Barton LM, Bird HA. Improving pain by the stabilization of hyperlax joints. J Orthop
Rheumatol, 1996; 9:46-51.
10. Beard DJ, Dodd C, Trundle H, Simpson A. Proprioceptive enhancement for anterior cruciate
ligament deficiency. A prospective randomised trial of two physiotherapy regimes. J Bone Jt
Surg (Br), 1994; 76(4):654-9.
11. Bernier JN, Perrin DH. Effect of coordination training on proprioception of the functionally
unstable ankle. J Orthop & Sports Phys Therap, 1998; 27(4):264-75.
12. Williams ACdeC, Nicholas M, Richardson Pither CE, et al. Evaluation of a cognitive
behavioural programme for rehabilitating patients with chronic pain. Br J Gen Pract, 1993; 43:
513-8.
13. Richardson IH, Richardson PH, Williams ACdeC, et al. The effects of a cognitive behavioural
pain management programme on the quality of work and employment status of severely impaired
chronic pain patients. Disabil & Rehab, 1994; 16(1):26-34.
14. Joubrel, I., Robineau, S., Petrilli, S. and Gallien, P. (2001) Musculoskeletal disorders in
instrumental musicians: Epidemiological study. Annales de Readaptation et de Medecine
Physique; 44:72-80.
15. Larsson, L.-G., Baum, J., Mudholkar, G. S. and Kollia, G. D. (1993) Nature and impact of
musculoskeletal problems in a population of musicians. Medical Problems of Performing Artists;
8:73-76.
16. Lockwood, A. H. (1988) medical problems in secondary school-aged musicians. Medical
Problems of Performing Artists;129-132.
17. Fry, H. J. H. (1986) Incidence of overuse syndrome in the symphony orchestra. Medical
Problems of Performing Artists; 51-55.
18. Fry, H. J. H., Ross, P. and Rutherford, M. (1988) Music-related overuse in secondary schools.
Medical Problems in Performing Artists; 133-134.
19. Dawson, W. J. (2001) Upper extremity overuse in instrumentalists. Medical Problems of
Performing Artists; 16:66-71.

Page 74 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Other soft tissue problems

20. Lambert, C. M. (1992) Hand and upper limb problems of instrumental musicians. British
Journal of Rheumatology; 31:265-271.
21. Bejjani, F. J., Kaye, G. M. and Benham, M. (1996) Musculoskeletal and neuromuscular
conditions of instrumental musicians. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation; 77:406-
413.
22. Milan, K. R. (1994) Injury in ballet: A review of relevant topics for the physical therapist.
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy; 19:121-129.
23. Schon, L. C. and Weinfeld, S. B. (1996) Lower extremity musculoskeletal problems in
dancers. Current Opinion in Rheumatology; 8:130-142.
24. Ostwald, P. F., Baron, B. C., Byl, N. M. and Wilson, F. R. (1994) Performing arts medicine.
Western Journal of Medicine;160: 48-52.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 75

Other soft tissue problems Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Page 76 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Fibromyalgia and complex regional pain disorders

11. Fibromyalgia and complex regional pain disorders

Summary

11.1 Both fibromyalgia and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) are poorly defined conditions
characterised by pain which can have a huge impact on functional independence and lifestyle.
11.2 In fibromyalgia pain is diffuse, particularly in and around muscles, and there is no associated
inflammatory synovitis or myositis, whereas in CRPS, the affected part of the body may manifest
profound physical changes including altered skin colour and swelling.
11.3 In both conditions, pain needs to be acknowledged. Other factors likely to interfere with symptom
resolution eg compensation claims for prior injuries in CRPS, need to be identified and addressed
promptly.
11.4 For CRPS, local treatments eg regional nerve blocks, protective and/or off-loading orthoses, may
facilitate commencing rehabilitation However cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) combined
with rehabilitation to promote independence and return to normal lifestyle are the mainstays of
treatment.
11.5 For fibromyalgia, initial management should include patient education supplemented by
physiotherapy, particularly aerobic exercise, but CBT again often plays a crucial role.
11.6 currently services are patchy for both conditions and management is very variable. Local
agreement needs to be reached about appropriate care pathways for these patients. These are
conditions where success is probably more dependent on the interest and commitment of treating
clinicians than their professional background and speciality.
11.7 Even with a well co-ordinated approach to management, prognosis is variable. Seventy per cent
success rates have been reported with some programmes for fibromyalgia but the limited
population data available for both conditions suggests generally poorer outcomes both in terms of
pain and function.

Complex regional pain syndrome

What is CRPS and why does it matter?

11.8 Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a complex and poorly-understood condition
characterised by:
pain and altered sensation
motor disturbance and soft tissue change
vasomotor and autonomic changes and
psychosocial disturbance.
11.9 Neurological symptoms typically do not conform to any particular pattern of nerve damage.
Usually, the pain is intensely unpleasant and distressing, so that it is often described in graphic
images. In the acute stages the affected limb is discoloured (red or purple), shiny, swollen and
excruciatingly tender to touch. This hypersensitivity results in protective guarding postures and
learned disuse which quickly lead to wasting and contracture.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 77

Fibromyalgia and complex regional pain disorders Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

11.10 Many different names have been ascribed to this condition, including ‘Reflex Sympathetic
Dystrophy’ and ‘Sympathetically Maintained Pain’. However, the role of the sympathetic system
is not well understood, and the term ‘Complex Regional Pain Syndrome’ has been coined to
emphasise the complex interaction of somatic, psychological and behavioural factors and the
regional (ie non-localised) distribution of symptoms1. The International Association for the Study
of Pain (IASP) has recently attempted to develop criteria to improve the diagnosis of CRPS.
However, these have not been fully validated and are still subject to debate. CRPS has certain
features which set it aside from other types of chronic pain2 and which have implications for
management. These include:
a history of trauma or surgery in 95% of cases1 . There is no association with severity of
trauma, which is typically minor3, but there is a high frequency of compensation claims.
a striking, if temporary, response to sympathetic blockade. In some cases this may offer a
useful route initial treatment
11.11 There are strong associations with:
loss of employment4
significant life events in the year preceding onset5-7
depression and/or anxiety4, 8-10
psycho-neuroticism or personality disorders5, 11.
11.12 Disproportionate disability from CRPS is reported and questions about whether symptoms are
genuine have been raised12, 13. However, the results of treatment in compensation cases with pain
dysfunction are exceedingly poor14.

Management

11.13 Bonica in the 1950s was the first to appreciate that a combined physical and psychotherapeutic
approach improved outcomes in pain management. Since then interdisciplinary programmes have
become accepted good practice for management of CRPS as in other chronic pain states. There
have now been a large number of controlled evaluations of cognitive behavioural treatment
programmes for chronic pain in general which have been subjected to meta-analysis and
systematic review15,-17. These have demonstrated clear benefits over conventional management in
terms of mood15, disability17, interference with activities15 and pain behaviour16, 17. Even though
reduction of pain intensity is not a primary goal for these programmes, some trials nevertheless
report benefits15, 17. In addition, some studies report cost-benefits in terms of decreased demand for
health care18 and increased return to work15.
11.14 In CRPS, local hypersensitivity and allodynia in the affected extremity frequently form barriers to
physical handling, weight-bearing exercise etc. Learned disuse leads to muscle wasting and
contracture formation, which further impedes active use and increases sensitivity. Approaches to
consider as initial management include orthotic intervention and sympathetic nerve blockade.

Orthoses
11.15 Pressure garments may be introduced gradually as a method of protecting the affected extremity
from further painful skin contact and damage. Such garments will also alleviate swelling and there
is anecdotal evidence of longer term benefits for pain. These may be used in conjunction with a
weight-relieving orthosis such as a patellar-tendon bearing orthosis to allow those with lower limb
involvement to regain some mobility despite on-going CRPS.

Sympathetic nerve blockade

11.16 Sympathetic nerve blockade may produce striking, albeit temporary, relief of pain in a sub-group
of patients and has been advocated as a way into rehabilitation, producing a window of pain relief
during which it is possible to break the vicious cycle by handling the affected limb and initiating

Page 78 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Fibromyalgia and complex regional pain disorders

the resumption of physical activity19. A systematic review of the efficacy of this and other
pharmacological interventions was undertaken by Kingery and colleagues in 199720. Clear
placebo-controlled evidence was identified to support of the use of analgesics with steroids and
capsaicin.
11.17 There was some support for the effectiveness of intravenous regional blockade using bretylium or
ketanserin, while the more commonly used guanethidine, which has been more extensively
investigated, was shown to be ineffective. No placebo-controlled data was found for sympathetic
ganglion blockade, surgical sympathectomy or physical therapy. The reviewers missed the point
that by definition the effects of blockade are temporary, so that long term effects will occur only if
they are repeated or used in association with other interventions. Their conclusions must be
treated with caution, since many of the trials were small and examined pharmacological
interventions in isolation, rather than as part of a rehabilitation programme.
11.18 Based on the evidence outlined above, the mainstay of management is through an inter-
disciplinary rehabilitation programme, but pharmacological interventions may offer a useful
window of relief in which to initiate them. The inter-disciplinary programme should be provided
by trained professionals who have had experience in and commitment to this difficult area of
work. The disciplines generally needed to support the programme are listed in Table 11.1 and
principal components of the programme21 in Table 11.2.

Table 11.1
Professionals to support an inter-disciplinary programme

Medical staff
Consultant in rehabilitation medicine, experienced in the management of RSD and chronic pain
Pain interventionist – usually an anaesthetist, to provide pharmcological procedures

Psychology staff
Trained in cognitive behavioural approaches to pain management

Physiotherapy staff
With experience in working with chronic pain patients

Occupational therapy staff

With experience in working with chronic pain patients and vocational training

Other staff who may be involved

Vocational counsellor
Recreational therapist

BSRM Working Party Report Page 79

Fibromyalgia and complex regional pain disorders Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Table 11.2
Components of an interdisciplinary approach

Medical management
Investigation and confirmation of diagnosis
Pharmacological intervention / blockade to provide a window of pain relief
Reassurance that physical and occupational therapy are safe and appropriate
Provide medical follow-up to prevent cure seeking elsewhere and iatrogenic damage
Support any litigation / compensation claim to its resolution and conclusion
Education
How stress, emotional stress, muscle tension and de-conditioning can increase pain experience
Provide insight into how their own behaviours may serve to exacerbate their pain
Help patient to understand and accept a self-management approach
Teach relaxation techniques, breathing exercises etc to reverse sympathetic arousal
Psychology
Identify any psychological factors contributing to excessive pain and disability behaviours
Treat anxiety and depression
Teaching coping strategies, positive though patterns to help them regain control and inhibit negative
thoughts, catastrophising etc
Identify and challenge secondary gain resulting in excessive disability behaviour
Support family in encouraging individual to relinquish their sick role and do more for themselves
Physical therapy
Retrain normal body posture to avoid guarding, which may lead to bizarre postures and muscle
tension
Desensitization – handling the affected part following by passive stretching / isometric exercise
Progression to active isotonic exercise and then strength training
General body re-conditioning – cardiovascular fitness
Encourage recreational physical exercise and functional goals
Occupational therapy
Support graded return to independence in activities of daily living with clear functional goals
Adaptation of environment to encourage maximal independence
Extend to social and recreational activities in and outside the home
Workplace assessment / vocational re-training

Fibromyalgia

11.19 This chronic Musculoskeletal syndrome, essentially a diagnosis of exclusion, is characterised by

diffuse pain, particularly in and around the muscles, in the absence of inflammatory synovitis or
myositis.
11.20 As well as muscular pain and aching, the history may include associated features such as sleep
disturbance, general fatigue, headaches, irritable bowel syndrome, depression and anxiety.
Examination of the Musculoskeletal system elicits tenderness upon palpation of discreet
anatomical locations, described as ‘pressure points’, notably around the neck, sternum, buttocks
and thighs, but is otherwise unremarkable.

Page 80 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Fibromyalgia and complex regional pain disorders

11.21 Prevalence varies between 1% and 4% of the population, 75% of the afflicted being women22.
Conditions with overlapping symtomatology (eg rheumatoid arthritis, SLE, polymyalgia
rheumatica) must be excluded.
11.22 There is limited evidence to guide the management of fibromyalgia. Investigating tender points
does not seem to be helpful (Frank et al in press). Instead, a so-called ‘biopsychosocial’ approach
to management is advocated, where:
‘bio’ refers to the use of physiotherapy, particularly aerobic exercise23 to overcome physical
deconditioning
‘psycho’ refers to cognitive behavioural therapy to address unhelpful illness beliefs and
behaviour24.
'social’ explores the social milieu which, when adverse (eg problems with relationships,
financial difficulties, etc.), compounds the situation.
11.23 A pain management programme25 is also needed. Analgesics should be used in preference to
NSAIDs. Centrally acting drugs such as tricyclic antidepressants have proved particularly effective
in small dosage26.
11.24 Prognosis should be guarded. Although the most successful programmes claim 70% improvement
at 14-year follow-up27, shorter studies have suggested less improvement.

References
1. Bruehl S., Harden RN and Sorrell P. Complex Regional Pain Syndromes, a fresh look at a
difficult problem. In 62nd Annual Assembly of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and
RehabilitationSan Francisco, 2000.
2. Bruehl S, Husfeldt B, Lubenow T et al. (1996) Psychological differences between Reflex
sympathetic dystrophy and non-RSD chronic pain patients. Pain 1996; 67: 107-114.
3. Finsterbush A, Frankl U, Mann G and Lowe J. Reflex sympathetic dystrophy of the
patellofemoral joint. Orthopaedic Review 1991; 20: 877-885.
4. Rauis AL. A series of 104 posttraumatic cases of reflex sympathetic dystrophy. Acta
Orthopaedica Belgica 1999; 65: 86-90
5. Van Houdenhove B, Vervaeke G, Onghena P, et al. Psychometric characteristics of 66 patients
with reflex sympathetic dystrophy. European Journal of Pain 1994; 15: 50-58.
6. Van Houdenhove B. Neuro-algodystrophy: a psychiatrist's view. Clinical Rheumatology 1986;
5:399-406.
7. Geertzen JHB, De Bruijn-Kofman AT, De Bruijn HP, Van De Wiel HBM. and Dijkstra PU.
Stressful life events and psychological dysfunction in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome type I.
Clinical Journal of Pain 1998; 14: 143-147.
8. Zucchini M, Alberti G and Moretti MP. Algodystrophy and related psychological features.
Functional Neurology 1989; 4: 153-156.
9. Feldman SI, Downey G and Schaffer-Neitz R. Pain, negative mood, and perceived support in
chronic pain patients: A daily diary study of people with reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome.
Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 1999; 67: 776-785.
10.. Bruehl S and Carlson, CR. Predisposing psychological factors in the development of reflex
sympathetic dystrophy. A review of the empirical evidence. Clinical Journal of Pain 1992; 8:
287-299.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 81

Fibromyalgia and complex regional pain disorders Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

11. Monti DA., Herring CL., Schwartzman R.J and Marchese M. Personality assessment of
patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome type I. Clinical Journal of Pain 1998; 14: 295-
302.
12. Verdugo RJ and Ochoa JL Abnormal movements in complex regional pain syndrome:
asssessment of their nature. Muscle and Nerve 2000; 23: 198-205.
13. Buijs EJ, Klijn FAM, Lindeman E. and Van Wijck AJM. Reflex sympathetic dystrophy as a
factitious disorder. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 2000; 144: 1617-1620.
14. Neuschwander D, Drez DJ and Heck S. (1996) Pain dysfunction syndrome of the knee.
Orthopedics (Thorofare, NJ) 1996; 19: 27-32.
15. Flor H, Fydrich T and Turk, DC. Efficacy of multidisciplinary pain treatment centres: a meta-
analytic review. Pain 1992; 49: 221-230.
16. Morley S, Eccleston C. and Williams A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials of cognitive behaviour therapy and behaviour therapy for chronic pain in adults,
excluding headache. Pain 1999; 80: 1-13.
17. Van Tulder MW, Ostelo R, Vlaeyen JWS, Linton SJ, Morley SJ and Assendelft WJJ.
Behavioral treatment for chronic low back pain: A systematic review within the framework of the
cochrane back review group. Spine 2000; 25: 2688-2699.
18. Caudill M, Schnable R, Zuttermeister P, Benson H and Friedman R. Decreased clinic use by
chronic pain patients: response to behavioral medicine intervention. Clinical Journal of Pain
1991; 7: 305-310.
19. Shumacker HB. A personal overview of causalgia and other reflex dystrophies. Annals of
Surgery 1985; 201: 278-289.
20. Kingery WS. A critical review of controlled clinical trials for peripheral neuropathic pain and
complex regional pain syndromes [see comments]. Pain 1997; 73:123-139.
21. Harden RN. A clinical approach to complex regional pain syndrome. Clinical Journal of Pain
2000; 16:S26-S32.
22. Goldenberg DL. Fibromyalgia and related syndromes. In: Hochberg MC, Silman AJ,
Smolen JS, Weinblatt ME, Weisman MH, eds. Rheumatology (3rd edition). . London:
Mosby; 2003: 701-12.
23. Gowans SE, de Hueck A, Voss S, et al. A randomised controlled trial of exercise and
education for individuals with fibromyalgia. Arthritis Care and Research, 1999, 12:120-8.
24. Hadhazy VA, Ezzo J, Creamer P, et al. Mind body therapies for the treatment of fibromyalgia.
A systematic review. J Rheumatol, 2000; 27:2911-8.
25. Bailey A, Starr L, Alderson M, Moreland J. A comparative evaluation of a fibromyalgia
rehabilitation programme. Arthritis Care and Research, 1999; 12:336-40.
26. Goldenberg DL, Felson DT, Dinerman H. A randomised controlled trial of amitriptyline and
naproxen in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum, 1986; 29:1371-7.
27. Kennedy M, Felson DT. A prospective long-term study of fibromyalgia syndrome.
Arthritis Rheum, 1996; 39:682-5.

Page 82 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Environmental access

12. Environmental access

Summary

12.1 Poor environmental access has many consequences. It can for example, increase vulnerability to
injuries through falls, create dependence, delay discharge from hospital and affect potential to
return to work.
12.2 As indicated in the Audit commission report “Better Equipped”, statutory providers of equipment
such as wheelchairs are usually under-resourced, given low priority and often poorly managed.
There are also large regional variations in provision.
12.3 The population most frequently at risk is elderly, has other illnesses and/or disabilities as well as
Musculoskeletal (MSK) problems and has relatively low incomes. Good sources of information
(eg many OT departments, DIAL UK, RADAR, other patient support groups and the Internet)
about equipment to help with environmental access exist. A range of benefits is also available.
However information about benefits, etc is complex and often difficult to follow and those who
develop mobility problems over 65 years are specifically excluded from the mobility component
of Disability Living Allowance.
12.4 Examples of good practice include Disabled Living Centres (where those with mobility problems
can try out different equipment and be given independent expert advice before purchase or
supply), Shopmobility schemes and Driving Assessment services. The choice in many areas, eg
wheelchair provision, has increased. There is also a statutory obligation to consult service users
when designing a service. Legislation is also acting as a spur to change with public transport and
buildings gradually becoming more accessible to those with mobility problems.
12.5 However, there is much untapped potential to take advantage of technological advances to
promote independence and self-respect amongst those with mobility problems.

Introduction

12.6 Musculoskeletal problems have a high prevalence worldwide. Amongst the elderly, in particular,
these problems are often compounded by co-existing pathologies, which affect stamina, balance,
etc (eg angina, stroke or lower limb amputation.) All these features may hinder movement both
within and outside the home, limiting independence and lifestyle. In richer countries, technological
improvements in wheelchair design, or computer operated environmental controls have helped
environmental access for those with MSK-related mobility problems hugely over the last 10-20
years. Such changes have been spurred on by changed attitudes to people with disabilities and
progressive legislation, which demands more accessible architecture, and transport systems.
However, poorer countries may have insufficient resources to afford these technologies, and even
in more prosperous communities, the attitudes of society and environmental barriers still pose
problems for many disabled people1. In Britain, the following scenarios are still all too common:
Hospital discharge delayed by environmental barriers at home or slow provision of equipment
eg wheelchairs
Return to work is delayed or prevented due to difficulties with access
Environmental difficulties result in undignified or humiliating situations, for example a
wheelchair dependant individual being obliged to use the goods lift to move between floors
Failure to allow for mobility problems leads to an individual falling or sustaining other injuries.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 83

Environmental access Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

12.7 Inter-agency barriers and fragmented funding have often worked against the efficient provision of
help, but the Disability Discrimination Act and the work of the Disability Rights Commission have
done much to support those trying to overcome these problems.

Sources of information and advice

For individuals with Musculoskeletal conditions

12.8 Good quality, easily accessible information to allow informed choices is fundamental for
empowering individuals and is a key principle in the Living Options report produced by the Prince
of Wales Advisory Group in 19852.
12.9 The Internet has some excellent disability web sites3. However the sources and the quality of
information they provide need to be evaluated (see below). Disabled Living Centres4 can provide
opportunities for people with disabilities to try out equipment options with free impartial advice
available and there are additional exhibitions of specialist equipment including the annual Mobility
Road Show. Occupational therapy departments combine assessment with advice and information
on aids and solutions. For both equipment and the wider environmental access issues people may
either seek information and advice from condition specific organisations, such as Arthritis Care5 or
the National Ankylosing Spondylosis Society6, or contact national ‘generic disabled persons
organisations, such as RADAR7 or DIAL UK8 or the British Council of Disabled people9 or more
locally based information and advice centres.

For professional practitioners or planners of services or facilities

12.10 The principle of consultation with, and the involvement of disabled people is now obligatory for
Social Services Departments as part of the Disabled Persons (Consultation) Act 1986. The Health
Service is also embracing the principle of the participation of disabled people to assist in the
planning, provision and review of services.
12.11 Advice and representation can be obtained via one or more of the disabled persons organisations
described above or from specifically convened local or national focus groups of disabled people.

Evaluation of equipment and services

12.12 There is a great need to evaluate the burgeoning amount of equipment and also the statutory and
other services, which provide it. Well-conducted surveys have given valuable insights into users’
experiences and their views of these services10, 11. Reviews of equipment safety and ease of usage
are undertaken by various statutory bodies including the Medicines and Healthcare Products
Regulatory Agency (MHRA)12 and Ricability13 who produce excellent written reports. However
the MHRA is not set up to formally evaluate efficacy of all equipment marketed; instead it often
has to respond to reports of adverse events after such events have been reported.

Organisation of services providing equipment for mobility and

environmental access

12.13 The Audit Commission in its report ‘Fully Equipped’14 looked at the functioning of several
statutory equipment services relevant to this document – the orthotic service, the wheelchair and
seating service and the community equipment services - and pointed out their shortcomings.

Page 84 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Environmental access

Under funding, lack of audit and research and managerial neglect were found to be widespread and
these issues were considered a priority for change.
12.14 The principles of accessibility, equity of provision, the possibility of choice, quality and value for
money are often stated, but seldom fully achieved. Whilst many people purchase equipment
privately this is not a realistic option for large numbers of people who are on lower income levels.
The importance of appropriate guidance and advice on suitability of equipment is essential to
ensure the user gets what is needed. Unfortunately the criteria for the issue of equipment can vary
considerably from area to area resulting in frustration and a sense of injustice14.

Financial help/concessions

12.15 People with disabilities tend to have relatively lower incomes, with less capital resource and this
will particularly apply to those who have been disabled since childhood or early adulthood. A
number of disability related benefits and concessions exist, but unfortunately people who develop
a disability at or after their 65th birthday are not eligible to apply for higher rate mobility allowance
(part of the Disabled Living Allowance), thereby excluding many who would otherwise benefit.
12.16 In order to help people with the complexities of their applications for benefit and with Benefits
Appeal Tribunals, it is important to have the support and help of a competent Welfare Rights
Adviser (officer). These are usually based in Social Services Departments or in local disabled
person’s organisations. The major sources of statutory funding are the Independent Living Fund,
housing adaptation grants, educational support grants (for example to provide an assistant at a
University), and support for those in employment through the Jobcentre Plus network.
Occupational therapy departments, Social Services, relevant governmental departments, disabled
persons’ organisations (both local and national) and Citizens’ Advice Bureaus should also be able
to help identify alternative sources of funding eg charitable trusts, pension funds etc. Some
benefits, such as higher rate mobility allowance, carry with them significant concessions. In
Britain these include exemption from vehicle excise duty (car tax), concessionary parking15 and
entitlement to a Disabled persons’ parking badge. The latter has now been standardised across
Europe as the ‘blue badge’.

Provision of mobility aids and simple housing adaptations

12.17 Simple aids may be provided from a variety of sources, for example walking aids from
physiotherapy departments, aids for daily living from Social Services Departments, local
equipment stores and in some occupational therapy departments. Equipment can be privately
purchased from local retail outlets, via mail order or sometimes direct from the manufacturer.
When there is any question of housing adaptation, even if simple, eg fixing rails, it is sensible to
seek the advice of an occupational therapist, who will know the regulations and local procedures.
It is also best to seek the agreement of the landlord if one is involved! Unfortunately the provision
of equipment and the assessment of need for equipment by the various statutory authorities can be
a confusing process for disabled people and their advisors. In some parts of the UK, an assessment
is no longer required for straightforward equipment such as bath aids. Where this has been
adopted, equipment supply has speeded up. The recent integration of hospital and community
equipment provision (joint budgets and loans) has also helped simplify processes.

Supplying more expensive equipment and major structural

adaptations/modifications

12.18 In the majority of instances stairs are the greatest immediate obstacle to a person’s mobility within
the home, particularly in the absence of a downstairs toilet16. A range of options to improve access
between floors exist. Re-housing in single level accommodation is often the simplest option.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 85

Environmental access Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

However, this is not always feasible or desirable; a move may separate the disabled person from
family, friends and informal carers. In such circumstances, a stair lift or through floor lift may be a
satisfactory alternative. In extreme disability, for example with the most destructive forms of
inflammatory arthritis or when such arthritis has been complicated by cervical myelopathy,
hoisting systems, specialised beds and specialised washing facilities together with structural
modifications may be necessary. These are likely to require major grants. The advice of an
occupational therapist and an architect (often accessible through social services) on structural
considerations, building regulations and general feasibility is essential. Such solutions need to be
acceptable to the disabled individual and the owner of the property.

Wheelchairs

12.19 People with MSKD other than severe inflammatory arthritis are on the whole not as extensive
users of wheelchairs as those with paralysing neurological conditions. The former tend to confine
use to outdoors on an intermittent basis. A small minority of people with severe arthritis will be
dependent upon electrically powered wheelchairs for indoor and outdoor use when for example,
severe lower limb arthritis is associated with severe upper limb involvement especially of the
hands and shoulder. When people experience difficulty propelling a wheelchair, the early
provision of an electrically powered chair is appropriate and modification to the controls may be
necessary to suit arthritic hands. Bossingham and Russell (1980)17 showed that electrically
powered wheelchairs are well used by people with advanced inflammatory arthritis provided there
has been good assessment and appropriate prescription. An extensive range of wheelchairs is
available for private purchase. A more limited range is available through local wheelchair services,
although NHS voucher schemes are now available to provide some funding towards a wider
choice.
12.20 Some outdoor electric chairs/scooters are capable of travelling up to 8 mph (class 3 vehicle),
although only 4 mph is permitted on the pavement. Wheelchairs and scooters are now increasingly
seen as a symbol of mobility rather than one of disability with many people seeing an electric
scooter, whether three or four wheeled, as a socially acceptable method of transportation when
mobility is severely limited. This development has been greatly facilitated by the recent spread of
Shop Mobility schemes within shopping centres/areas.
12.21 Where a person wishes to purchase such a vehicle it can be helpful to refer to some specific
publications such as ‘How to Choose a Powered Vehicle’18 or ‘Get Wheelchair Wise – A Guide to
Public Transport’19. Independent assessment of the individual’s requirements is highly
recommended and can be undertaken either at DLCs or by member Centres of the Forum of
Mobility Centres20.

Independent private car mobility (drivers and passengers)

12.22 For much of the population a car is the preferred means of transport and car usage continues to
rise21. For people with MSKD, the benefits of car usage need to be weighed against the potential
difficulties getting into and out of a car and using its controls.
12.23 Driving safety is not usually an issue and the DVLA usually does not consider that ‘arthritis’ per
se is a notifiable condition. However where a person’s MSKD compromises vehicle control and
therefore potential safety and/or when modified controls are required to drive, eg a left foot
accelerator, the DVLA does need to be notified22. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis frequently
choose not to drive during periods of exacerbation of their arthritis or following joint replacement
and there is good reason to support this approach23.
12.24 Those with established RA may have particular difficulties getting in and out of vehicles (hips and
knees), using the ignition key, reaching up for and doing up seatbelts (shoulders and hands),

Page 86 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Environmental access

releasing parking brake inhibitor buttons (thumbs) or reversing and parking (many joints including
the neck)23-25. An unstable rheumatoid neck may present a particular hazard for an affected driver
or passenger if the vehicle they are travelling in is subjected to a rear end impact. It is difficult to
be completely reassuring, but head restraints are mandatory in combination with a seat belt and
firm supportive cervical collars may offer some protection26.
12.25 Basic advice on aids for driving (including seats and restraints) and appropriate leaflets may be
available from local occupational therapists and physiotherapists, but a good additional source of
advice is one of the members of the Forum of Mobility Centres20. The Disability and Inclusion
Unit of the Department for Transport (DFT)27, Resources Centres4, disabled persons’ motoring
organisations, car conversion specialists or Motability (if the individual is a customer) can be very
helpful. However it has to be emphasised that people do need to try vehicles and equipment for
themselves before purchase.
12.26 Often people with arthritis try to solve their problems themselves with varying degrees of
success23. Most people with major arthritis are likely to benefit from a vehicle with standard
factory fitted power assisted steering, although sometimes this can be further lightened to make
steering even easier. Additionally many will benefit from automatic transmission. In general the
aids required to help with driving are relatively inexpensive and easily available. When people
experience major difficulties operating car controls, or getting in and out, or with wheelchair or
scooter stowage a specialist assessment is recommended.
12.27 The Motability Vehicle Leasing or hire purchasing schemes are widely used by people with
arthritis, who are eligible if in receipt of higher rate Mobility Allowance for a minimum of three
years. On the whole the leasing scheme is used more often as it provides the individual with
inclusive insurance and car maintenance together with vehicle replacement after three years in
return for the weekly contribution of their Mobility Allowance and an initial deposit28.

Use of public transport, community transport and taxis

12.28 As stated above people with arthritis use public transport infrequently and there is a marked
preference for saloon car taxis rather than the Black Cab wheelchair accessible taxis23. Where
available social car schemes and community transport, which provide a door-to-door delivery
service but have to be booked in advance, can be useful options. Buses are often hazardous to
people with arthritis, who may have difficulty holding on with arthritic upper limbs. Through the
work of the DFT’s Mobility and Inclusion Unit (who have responsibility for ensuring that public
transport is accessible to disabled users - this is a requirement of the Disability Discrimination
Act), there are now greater numbers of low floor buses with spaces for passengers in wheel chairs
manned by drivers who have received training to improve their awareness of the needs of their
disabled passengers. Similar work is ongoing to improve access and facilities on trains.
Tripscope29 is an excellent information resource about a wide range of travel issues either at home
or abroad. Additionally the Ricability booklet ‘wheels within wheels’30 gives a great deal of very
useful information on all aspects of using a wheel chair on public transport and on the phasing in
of transport related regulations consequent upon the Disability Discrimination Act.

Access in public places

12.29 Wheelchair access to public buildings continues to improve, but may be extremely difficult in
older establishments. Shop mobility schemes and parking concessions, in addition to drop kerbs,
make it much easier for disabled people to use town centres, but sensory pavements can be very
uncomfortable for people with arthritic feet. The RADAR key is an invaluable asset for any
disabled person wishing to use disabled toilet facilities. These keys can be obtained (there is often
a small fee) from local council or from RADAR7. It is important that local communities have their

BSRM Working Party Report Page 87

Environmental access Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

own access group who can report on the local difficulties for disabled people and influence
planners and statutory authorities.

Access for employment

12.30 At an early stage in a Musculoskeletal illness discussions between a person and his/her employer
(and occupational health service if available) may help through job modification or rotation of
tasks at work31. This approach is more likely to achieve job-retention than a prolonged period of
sick leave, followed by a return to an unchanged job. Indeed, those who remain off work for more
than six months (and hence receive Incapacity Benefit) are much less likely to return to work31.
12.31 Current government support for those with physical or emotional difficulties is summarized in
‘Pathways to work’33. If no occupational health service is available, as is usually the case in
smaller companies, those who have difficulties in remaining in work or who are already
unemployed should contact the local Jobcentre plus. Personal Advisers and Disability
Employment Advisers are available there to provide personal advice and practical help and
support. State assistance is often available in terms of help with getting to work, funding for
modifications to equipment or other capital expenditure, and towards becoming self employed33.
12.32 Arthritis Care can also give useful information34, as may local charities such as local disabled
peoples organisations35.

References
1. Oliver M . Social work – Disabled people and disabling environments. Jessica Kingsley,
London 1980.
2. Prince of Wales Advisory Group on Disability - Living options. London 1985.
3. Some useful disability websites RADAR www.radar.org.uk / Disability Rights Commission
www.dvc-gb.org.uk.
4. Disabled Living Centres Council, First Floor, Winchester House, 11 Cranmer Road, London
SW9 6EJ.
5. Arthritis Care/Young Arthritis Care, 18 Stephenson Way, London NW1 2HD. Free phone help
line 0800 289170.
6. National Anklosing Spondylitis Society, 3 Grosvenor Crescent, London SW1X 7ER. Tel. 0171
2359585.
7. Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR), 12 City Forum, 250 City Road,
London EC1V 8AC.
8. Dial UK, Park Lodge, St Catherine’s Hospital, Tickhill Road, Doncaster DN4 8QN. Tel.
01302 310123.
9. British Council for Disabled People (BCODP), Litchchurch Plaza, Litchchurch Lane, Derby.
Tel. 01332 295551.
10. Frank AO, Ward J, Orwell NJ, McCullagh C, Belcher N. The introduction of the new NHS
electrically powered indoor-outdoor wheelchair. Clinical Rehabilitation 2000: 14:665-673.
11. Kettle M, Rowley C, Chamberlain MA (1992). A National survey of wheelchair users.
Clinical Rehabilitation 1992; 6:67-73.
12. Medical Devices Agency – Disability Equipment Assessment Centres. Reports obtainable
from – Orders Department, Room 1207, Hannibal House, Elephant and Castle, London SE1 6EQ.
Email address des@medical-devices.gov.uk.

Page 88 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Environmental access

13. Research Institute for Consumers Affairs (RICA), 2 Marylebone Road, London SW1 4DF.
14. Fully Equipped. Audit Commission report obtainable from Bookpoint Limited, 39 Milton
Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4TD.
15. The Blue Badge Scheme, DTLR. Obtainable (free) from PO Box 236, Wetherby LS23 7NB.
16. Turner-Stokes L and Frank AO. Urinary incontinence among patients with arthritis J. Roy Soc
Med 1992; 85:389-93.
17. Bossingham DA, Russell P. The usefulness of powered wheelchairs in advanced inflammatory
arthritis. Rheumatology and Rehabilitation 1980: 19:131-135.
18. How to choose a powered vehicle edited by the Mobility Centre, Queen Elizabeth’s
Foundation (020 18770 1151), published by Lomax tel. (01382) 503000.
19. DFT\BHTA publication “Get wheelchair wise – A wheelchair users guide to public transport”.
BHTA tel (01732) 458486; web. http:\\www.bhta.com.
20. Forum of Mobility Centres c/o Benefits Agency, Post Point 6, Room GN35, Quarry House,
Leeds LS2 7UA.
21. Oxlee P. Disabled people in cars – an overview in transport for disabled people. Proceedings
of a conference organised by European Minsters of Transport 1989.
22. At a glance guide to current medical standards of fitness to drive, Drivers Medical Unit,
DVLA, Longview Road, Morriston, Swansea SA99 1TU.
23. A survey of car driving and the use of other forms of transport in a hospital out-patient
population of people with rheumatoid arthritis. Murray-Leslie C, Brain ND, Stefan T (in
preparation).
24. Jones JG, McCann J, Lassere DN. Driving and arthritis. British Journal of Rheumatology
1991;30:361-364.
25. Cornwall M (1987). The assessment of people with arthritis who wish to drive a car.
International Disability Studies 1987; 9:194-197.
26. Johnson RM, Hart DL, Simmons EF. Cervical Orthoses. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
(Am) 1977: 59; 322-327.
27. Disability Policy Branch, Mobility and Inclusion Unit, DTLR, Zone 1/18, Great Minster
House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1 4DR.
28. Motability, Goodman House, Station Approach, Harlow, Essex CM20 2ET. Tel. 01279
635666.
29. Triscope, The Courtyard, Evelyn Road, London SW4 5JC.
30. Wheels within wheels – a guide to using a wheelchair on public transport – Ricability/
Department for Transport. www.ricability.org.uk; e-mail; mail@ricability.org.uk tel; 020 7427 2460
31. Frank AO and Chamberlain MA. Congratulations but no congratulations: should physicians do
more to support their patients at work? Clin Med 2004;4:102-4.
32. Frank AO, Chamberlain MA. Keeping our patients at work: implications fot the management
of rheumatoid arthritis and Musculoskeletal conditions. Rheumatology 2001; 40:1201-5.
33. Department for Work and Pensions; Pathways to work: helping people into
employment.Cm5690, 1-65.2002.
34. Hayward B, Working Horizons: employment information for people with arthritis. London:
Arthritis Care 1999.
35. British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine.Vocational Rehabilation: the way forward. (Second
edition) A report of a working group (Chair Frank AO ). London:British Society of Rehabilitation
Medicine, 2003.

BSRM Working Party Report Page 89

Environmental access Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Page 90 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation APPENDICES

13. APPENDICES

Appendix 1

Membership of the Working Party

Working Party Member and Affiliation Address

Professor Howard Bird Professor of Pharmacological Rheumatology, Clinical

British Society for Rheumatology, Arthritis Care & the Pharmacology Unit, Chapel Allerton Hospital,
Arthritis and Rheumatism Council Chapeltown Road, Leeds LS7 4SA

Mr Jiri Chand Research Associate, MRC Health Services Research

Collaboration, Department of Social Medicine,
University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road,
Bristol BS8 2PR

Professor Paul Dieppe Director, MRC Health Services Research

Collaboration, Department of Social Medicine,
University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road,
Bristol BS8 2PR

Dr Andrew Frank Consultant in Rehabilitation and Rheumatology,

British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine and the Northwick Park Hospital, Watford Road, Harrow,
Pain Society Middlesex HA1 3UJ

Mrs Anthea Franks C/o National Osteoporosis Society

National Osteoporosis Society Camerton, Bath BA2 OPJ

Dr Jeffrey Graham Principal Medical Officer, Department of Health,

Department of Health Observer Wellington House, 133 Waterloo Road,
London SE1 8UG

Dr Alison Hammond Senior Research Therapist, Department of

College of Occupational Therapists Rheumatology, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, London
Road, Derby DE1 2QY

Dr Lesley Hordon Consultant Rheumatologist, Dewsbury General

Hospital, Halifax Road, Dewsbury WF13 4HS

Mr Patrick Mulligan C/o British Orthopaedic Association,

British Orthopaedic Association 35-43 Lincolns Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PN

BSRM Working Party Report Page 91

APPENDICES Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Dr Christian Murray-Leslie Consultant in Rehabilitation Medicine

British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, London Road, Derby DE1
2QY

Dr Vera Neumann – Chair Consultant/Senior Lecturer in Rehabilitation Medicine,

British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine Chapel Allerton Hospital, Chapeltown Road, Leeds
LS7 4SA

Mrs Ceri Sedgeley Professional Adviser

Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, Bedford Row,
London WC1R 4ED

Professor Alan Tennant University of Leeds, Rheumatology & Rehabilitation

Society for Research in Rehabilitation Research Unit, 36 Clarendon Road, Leeds LS2 9NZ

Reverend Graham Trice Back Care, 16 Elm Tree Road, Teddington, Middlesex
Back Care TW11 8ST

Professor Lynne Turner-Stokes Herbert Dunhill Chair of Rehabilitation

British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine Kings College London and
Director, Regional Rehabilitation Unit
Northwick Park Hospital, Watford Road
Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3UJ

Dr Paul Watson Senior Lecturer, Pain Management and

Pain Society Rehabilitation, University of Leicester, Department of
Anaesthesia and Pain Management, Gwendolen
Road, Leicester LE5 4PW

Page 92 BSRM Working Party Report

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation APPENDICES

Appendix 2

Useful sources of information

Organisation and address Contact numbers/website

Arthritis Care Tel: 020 7380 6500
18 Stephenson Way Fax: 020 7380 6505
London NW1 2HD www.arthritiscare.org.uk

Arthritis Foundation (USA) www.arthritis.org

P.O. Box 7669
Atlanta, GA 30357-0669
USA

Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance Tel: 020 7242 3313

C/o British Society for Rheumatology Fax: 020 7242 3277
41 Eagle St
LONDON
WC1R 4LT
ARC (Arthritis Research Campaign) Tel: 0870 850 5000
Copeman House Fax: 01246 558007
St Mary’s Court www.arc.org.uk
St Mary’s Gate
Chesterfield
Derbyshire S41 7TD

BackCare Tel: 020 8977 5474

16 Elmtree Rd Fax: 020 8943 5318
TEDDINGTON www.backcare.org.uk
Middlesex
TW11 8ST

British Institute of Musculoskeletal Medicine Tel: 01923 220999

34 The Avenue Fax: 01923 249037
Watford www.bimm.org.uk
Herts
WD17 4AH

British Psychological Society Tel: 0116 254 9568

St Andrew House Fax: 0116 247 0787
48 Princess Road East www.bps.org.uk
LEICESTER
LE1 7DR

British Society for Rheumatology Tel: 020 7242 3313

41 Eagle Street Fax: 020 7242 3277
LONDON www.rheumatology.org.uk
WC1R 4TL

BSRM Working Party Report Page 93

APPENDICES Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine Tel: 01992 638865

The Royal College of Physicians Fax: 01992 638905
11 St Andrews Place www.bsrm.co.uk
Regents Park
LONDON
NW1 4LE

The Chartered Society of Physiotherapists Tel: 020 7242 1941

Dept of Professional Affairs www.csp.org.uk
14 Bedford Row
LONDON
WC1R 4ED

Employers Forum on Disability Tel: 020 7403 3020

Nutmeg House Fax: 020 7403 0404
60 Gainsford Street www.employers-forum.co.uk
London
SE1 2NY

Forum of Mobility Centres Tel: 020 8770 1151

C/o Banstead Mobility Centre e-mail: info@mobility-qe.com
Damson Way
Orchard Hill
Queen Mary’s Avenue
Carshalton
Surrey SM5 4NR

Lupus UK Tel: 01708 731251

St James House www.lupusuk.com
Eastern Road
Romford,
Essex RM1 3NH

National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society Tel: 01435 873527

N.A.S.S, Fax: 01435 873027
PO Box 179, E-mail: nass@nass.co.uk
Mayfield,
East Sussex, TN20 6ZL

National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society Tel: 0128 670 606

Briarwood House www.rheumatoid.org.uk
11 College Avenue
Maidenhead
Berkshire SL6 6AR

Primary Care Rheumatology Society Tel: 01609 774794

PO Box 42 Fax: 01609 774726
Northallerton www.pcrsociety.org.uk
North Yorkshire
DL7 8YG

Society for Back Pain Research Tel: 020 7405 6507

C/O British Orthopaedic Association Fax: 020 7831 2676
35-43 Lincoln Inn fields
LONDON
WC2A 3PN

Page 94 BSRM Working Party Report

 ISBN: 0-9540879-4-1

View publication stats