RESUMO
Background: Hospital healthcare workers have been reported to have a high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders, but their association with lateral epicondylitis (LE) is unknown. This study aimed to clarify the prevalence of LE and its associated factors among hospital healthcare workers. Methods: The present study included all staff members of a secondary emergency hospital who provided their consent to participate. Participants with a history of elbow joint trauma were excluded from this study. The diagnostic criteria for definite LE were: (1) pain in the elbow joint within 2 weeks of the study; (2) pain in the lateral epicondyle region on resisted extension of the wrist with the elbow extended; and (3) tenderness in the lateral epicondyle. The diagnosis of LE was defined by meeting all criteria. Age, height, weight, sex, dominant hand, occupation, years of employment, smoking history, drinking history, personal computer usage history, and smartphone usage history were investigated using a questionnaire. A physical examination, in addition to evaluation of pain in the lateral epicondyle, grip strength and wrist extension strength were measured. A statistical analysis was used to assess the prevalence of LE and its associated factors. All investigations, including the diagnosis of LE, were performed by a single orthopedic specialist. Results: We evaluated 544 individuals, corresponding to approximately 80% of all staff members. The median age was 39 years (interquartile range, 30-48). The study population included 154 males and 390 females. The occupations of the participants were as follows: nurses (n = 265), doctors (n = 47), clerks (n = 93), therapists (n = 27), certified care workers (n = 23), medical technologists (n = 22), pharmacists (n = 19), and others (n = 48). LE was diagnosed in 30 limbs/30 individuals with a prevalence of approximately 5.5%. There was no difference in the prevalence of LE among occupations (P = .85). A logistic regression analysis revealed that age (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.1; P = .01) and smoking history (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% confidence interval 1.01-8.56; P = .04) were independently associated with LE. Conclusion: This study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of LE among hospital healthcare workers. The prevalence of LE was 5.5%, and LE was independently associated with age and smoking history.
RESUMO
An association between glomus tumor and neurofibromatosis type 1 has been reported. It is characterized by multiple tumors and young age at onset. The early diagnosis of neurofibromatosis type 1 is important because it is associated with a high rate of malignancy. A 25-year-old man presented to our hospital with left index finger pain that had persisted for 6 years. Physical and imaging findings suggested a benign soft-tissue tumor. Surgery was performed, and the tumor was pathologically diagnosed as glomus tumor. In this case, the patient with a young-onset glomus tumor was suspected of having neurofibromatosis type 1. An additional medical examination led to the diagnosis of unrecognized neurofibromatosis type 1. We experienced a case in which the onset of a glomus tumor led to the diagnosis of neurofibromatosis type 1. Comorbid neurofibromatosis type 1 should be kept in mind when glomus tumors are diagnosed.
