Search

Background: Generalized joint hypermobility is an inherited collagen phenotype based on clinical assessments of joint mobility. However, there is no international consensus to define generalized joint hypermobility, both considering which joint mobility tests should be included and limits for joint hypermobility. Objectives: The primary aim of the study was to identify a subset of joint mobility tests to define generalized joint hypermobility. A further aim was to evaluate standardized limits for the classification of hypermobility in different joint types throughout the body. Methods: A total of 255 early pregnant women were included in the study. Joint mobility was measured according to a structured protocol. Correlation and principal component analysis were used to find a subset of joint mobility tests. To classify hypermobility in each joint mobility test, five different standard deviation levels plus 0.84, plus 1.04, plus 1.28, plus 1.64 and plus 2 were used, corresponding to 20%, 15%, 10%, 5% and 2.5% of the normal distribution. Results: No subset of joint mobility test could define generalized joint hypermobility. The higher the standard deviation levels, the higher the limit to classify joint hypermobility and the lower the prevalence. As a result of no subset of joint mobility tests were found to define generalized joint hypermobility, different combinations of major and minor joints in upper and lower limbs and the axial skeleton, were systematically developed. These combinations were evaluated for each standard deviation level, resulting in a prevalence of generalized joint hypermobility between 0% and 12.9% and a clear variation in how the hypermobile joint mobility tests were distributed. Conclusion: It is probably not possible to choose a subset of joint mobility tests to define GJH. In order not to overlook generalized joint hypermobility, a broader assessment of different joint types and sizes of joints appears to be needed. The prevalence of generalized joint hypermobility is dependent on joint hypermobility limit and the chosen combination of joint mobility tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are common and known to have consequences for individuals' adult health, leading to a higher risk of illness. The aims of the study were to investigate the ACEs in couples, to examine the extent of assortative mating and to investigate the association between the relationship of the load of ACEs within couples and health outcomes, one year after the birth of a common child. At antenatal clinics in Sweden 818 couples were recruited and investigated one year after the birth of a common child answering a questionnaire including the exposure to ten ACE categories and several outcome variables. In total, 59% of both mothers and partners reported exposure to at least one of the ten ACE categories. Among the mothers 11% and among the partners 9% reported exposure to ≥4 ACE categories (p = 0.12). There was a correlation between the numbers of ACE categories reported by the mothers and their partners (Spearman's ρ = 0.18, p<0.001). This association pertained to six of the ten ACE categories. In multiple logistic regression analyses, there were associations between the ACE exposure load and unfavourable outcomes among the mothers, the partners and within the couples. Unfavourable outcomes concerning health were most prominent in couples where both members reported exposures to ≥4 ACE categories (self-rated bad health (OR 13.82; CI 2.75–69.49), anxiety (OR 91.97; CI 13.38–632.07), depression (OR 17.42; CI 2.14–141.78) and perceived stress (OR 11.04; CI 2.79–43.73)). Mothers exposed to ACEs tend to have partners also exposed to ACEs. Exposure to ACEs was associated with bad health and unfavourable life conditions within the couples, especially among couples where both members reported exposure to multiple ACEs. These results should stimulate incentives to find, to support and to treat individuals and couples where both members report multiple ACEs. The consequences for the children should be further studied as well as how these families should be treated in health care and society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate associations of progestin-only contraceptives with persistent pelvic girdle pain 18 months after delivery. Methods: Prospective population based cohort study during the years 2003–2011. We included 20,493 women enrolled in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study who reported pelvic girdle pain in pregnancy week 30. Data were obtained by 3 self-administered questionnaires and the exposure was obtained by linkage to the Prescription Database of Norway. The outcome was pelvic girdle pain 18 months after delivery. Results: Pelvic girdle pain 18 months after delivery was reported by 9.7% (957/9830) of women with dispense of a progestin-only contraceptive and by 10.5% (1114/10,663) of women without dispense (adjusted odds ratio 0.93; 95% CI 0.84–1.02). In sub-analyses, long duration of exposure to a progestin intrauterine device or progestin-only oral contraceptives was associated with reduced odds of persistent pelvic girdle pain (Ptrend = 0.021 and Ptrend = 0.005). Conversely, long duration of exposure to progestin injections and/or a progestin implant was associated with modest increased odds of persistent pelvic girdle pain (Ptrend = 0.046). Early timing of progestin-only contraceptive dispense following delivery (≤3 months) was not significantly associated with persistent pelvic girdle pain. Conclusions: Our findings suggest a small beneficial effect of progestin intrauterine devices and progestin-only oral contraceptives on recovery from pelvic girdle pain. We cannot completely rule out an opposing adverse effect of exposure to progestin injections and/or progestin implants. However, the modest increased odds of persistent pelvic girdle pain among these users could be a result of unmeasured confounding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To describe referred pain patterns provoked from intra-pelvic structures in women with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) persisting after childbirth with the purpose to improve diagnostics and give implications for treatment. Materials and Methods: In this descriptive and comparative study 36 parous women with CPP were recruited from a physiotherapy department waiting list and by advertisements in newspapers. A control group of 29 parous women without CPP was consecutively assessed for eligibility from a midwifery surgery. Inclusion criterion for CPP was: moderate pain in the sacral region persisting at least six months after childbirth confirmed by pelvic pain provocation tests. Exclusion criteria in groups with and without CPP were: persistent back or pelvic pain with onset prior to pregnancy, previous back surgery and positive neurological signs. Pain was provoked by palpation of 13 predetermined intra-pelvic anatomical landmarks. The referred pain distribution was expressed in pain drawings and described in pain maps and calculated referred pain areas. Results: Pain provoked by palpation of the posterior intra-pelvic landmarks was mostly referred to the sacral region and pain provoked by palpation of the ischial and pubic bones was mostly referred to the groin and pubic regions, with or without pain referred down the ipsilateral leg. The average pain distribution area provoked by palpation of all 13 anatomical landmarks was 30.3 mm² (19.2 to 53.7) in women with CPP as compared to 3.2 mm² (1.0 to 5.1) in women without CPP, p< 0.0001. Conclusions: Referred pain patterns provoked from intra-pelvic landmarks in women with CPP are consistent with sclerotomal sensory innervation. Magnification of referred pain patterns indicates allodynia and central sensitization. The results suggest that pain mapping can be used to evaluate and confirm the pain experience among women with CPP and contribute to diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]