METHOD: This study utilized a quantitative, nonexperimental, cross-sectional research design. A total of 60 subjects were randomly selected after passing the study's sampling criteria. The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) was to used to determine common MSDs affecting the various regions in the body. The Demographic Pofile Sheet was provided to gather a subject's demographic characteristics.
RESULTS: Filipino migrant workers mostly complain of pain in the low back area (60%) and shoulder pain (60%), followed by pain in the upper back (48.3%) and neck pain (45%) in the last 12 months. Household workers accounting for 73.3% of the subjects commonly complain of pain in the hips/thighs (78.9%), while workers in the service industry commonly complain of knee pain (39.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: Results imply that Filipino migrant workers have a higher prevalence of shoulder and lower back pain in the last 12 months. Household workers are more susceptible to hip/thigh pain. Interventions focusing on ergonomics policy implementation, education on posture and lifting techniques and physical function is recommended. Further studies should consider the psychological and psychosocial aspects of migrant employment, which are known risk factors for MSDs.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between a +ve postoperative Upper Instrumented Vertebra (UIV) (≥0°) tilt angle and the risk of medial shoulder/neck and lateral shoulder imbalance among Lenke 1 and 2 Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) patients following Posterior Spinal Fusion.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current UIV selection strategy has poor correlation with postoperative shoulder balance. The relationship between a +ve postoperative UIV tilt angle and the risk of postoperative shoulder and neck imbalance was unknown.
METHODS: One hundred thirty-six Lenke 1 and 2 AIS patients with minimum 2 years follow-up were recruited. For medial shoulder and neck balance, patients were categorized into positive (+ve) imbalance (≥+4°), balanced, or negative (-ve) imbalance (≤-4°) groups based on T1 tilt angle/Cervical Axis measurement. For lateral shoulder balance, patients were classified into +ve imbalance (≥+3°) balanced, and -ve imbalance (≤-3°) groups based on Clavicle Angle (Cla-A) measurement. Linear regression analysis identified the predictive factors for shoulder/neck imbalance. Logistic regression analysis calculated the odds ratio of shoulder/neck imbalance for patients with +ve postoperative UIV tilt angle.
RESULTS: Postoperative UIV tilt angle and preoperative T1 tilt angle were predictive of +ve medial shoulder imbalance. Postoperative UIV tilt angle and postoperative PT correction were predictive of +ve neck imbalance. Approximately 51.6% of patients with +ve medial shoulder imbalance had +ve postoperative UIV tilt angle. Patients with +ve postoperative UIV tilt angle had 14.9 times increased odds of developing +ve medial shoulder imbalance and 3.3 times increased odds of developing +ve neck imbalance. Postoperative UIV tilt angle did not predict lateral shoulder imbalance.
CONCLUSION: Patients with +ve postoperative UIV tilt angle had 14.9 times increased odds of developing +ve medial shoulder imbalance (T1 tilt angle ≥+4°) and 3.3 times increased odds of developing +ve neck imbalance (cervical axis ≥+4°).
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
PURPOSE: To compare patients' and parents' perceptions of physical attributes (PAs) of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients and to report any correlations between their perceptions and Scoliosis Research Society-22r (SRS-22r) scores.
OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Few studies have looked into the differences between patients' and parents' perceptions of their appearance.
METHODS: AIS patient-parent pairs (n=170) were recruited. The patients' and parents' perceptions of six PAs were evaluated: waist asymmetry (WA), rib hump (RH), shoulder asymmetry (SA), neck tilt, breast asymmetry (BrA), and chest prominence. These PAs were ranked, and an aggregate PA (Agg-PA) score was derived from a score assigned to the attribute (6 for the most important PA and 1 for the least important). The patients also completed the SRS-22r questionnaire.
RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (58.2%) and 71 patients (41.8%) had thoracic and lumbar major curves, respectively. WA was ranked first by 54 patients (31.8%) and 50 parents (29.4%), whereas RH was ranked first by 50 patients (29.4%) and 38 parents (22.4%). The overall Agg-PA scores were similar for patients and parents (p>0.05). However, for thoracic major curves (TMCs) >40°, a significant difference was noted between the Agg-PA scores of patients and parents for SA (3.5±1.6 vs. 4.2±1.6, p=0.041) and BrA (3.0±1.6 vs. 2.2±1.3, p=0.006). For TMCs <40°, a significant difference was found between the Agg-PA scores of patients and parents for WA (3.7±1.6 vs. 4.4±1.5, p=0.050). BrA was negatively correlated with total SRS-22r score.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between patients and parents in their ranking of the most important PAs. For TMCs >40°, there were significant differences in the Agg-PA for SA and BrA. Pa¬tients were more concerned about BrA and parents were more concerned about SA. Patients' perception of the six PAs had weak correlation with SRS-22r scores.