Todd, Maureen Ann (2015) Study of the prevalence of musculoskeletal abnormalities, particularly ...

234 Pages·2015·26.38 MB·English

Todd, Maureen Ann (2015) Study of the prevalence of musculoskeletal
abnormalities, particularly arthritis, in children with Down’s syndrome in
the Glasgow population. MSc(R) thesis.

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/6225/

Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author

A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or
study, without prior permission or charge

This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first
obtaining permission in writing from the Author

The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any
format or medium without the formal permission of the Author

When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the
author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given.

Glasgow Theses Service
http://theses.gla.ac.uk/
[email protected]
STUDY OF THE PREVALENCE OF
MUSCULOSKELETAL
ABNORMALITIES, PARTICULARLY
ARTHRITIS,
IN CHILDREN WITH DOWN’S
SYNDROME IN THE GLASGOW
POPULATION

MAUREEN ANN TODD

THESIS SUBMITTED TO UNIVERSITY
OF GLASGOW FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE BY RESEARCH

MATRICULATION NUMBER 1010891
2

Frontispiece: Picture of young girl with Down’s syndrome taken by John Langdon Down in the
1800s showing marked arthritic changes in her hands (picture quality poor as old photo)
(www.intellectualdisability.info)
3

ABSTRACT

Down’s syndrome (DS) is associated with multiple musculoskeletal (MSK) features, including
hypermobility and inflammatory arthritis. MSK disorders are not included in the screening
programme for these children and correct diagnosis of MSK problems can be missed or delayed.

This study aimed to identify and examine the population of children with DS resident in Greater
Glasgow to determine the frequency of musculoskeletal disorders and the levels of associated
physical disability, particularly hypermobility, podiatric disorders, arthritis and obesity levels.

Between Jan 2011-2012 147 children with DS, aged between two and sixteen years and resident in
Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board by postcode were identified from the Glasgow Thyroid
and community paediatricians’ register. They were invited to a single study visit encompassing
musculoskeletal and podiatric examinations, anthropometric measurements and completion of
study questionnaires. Focus groups were carried out to establish knowledge of MSK disorders in
professionals likely to encounter this population.

Seventy three children participated in the study. A high level of hypermobility was identified,
characterized by predominance in the weight bearing joints of the lower limbs, especially hips
(77%), ankles (56%) and feet (59%). Standard measures of hypermobility failed to identify the
extent and severity of hypermobility in these children, identifying only 15% of children as having
hypermobility syndrome. No new cases of arthritis were identified in the study cohort. Families
reported a lack of expression of pain. Ten percent of the cohort were obese, compared to 20% in
the UK cohort from which DS growth charts are derived. Focus groups identified concerns from
professionals about knowledge and skills in identifying musculoskeletal problems in these children,
and challenges in ascribing an appropriate diagnosis.

This study identified barriers to care for a range of MSK pathologies in DS which targeted
education and disease specific structuring of services could address. Rheumatologists found that
expectations for MSK functioning in this population were low. Education focusing on the
recognition and accurate assessment of altered or deteriorating MSK function is required. Severe
and extensive hypermobility combined with altered expression of pain were found in this
population, adding diagnostic challenges. Current MSK examination tools for hypermobility and
hypotonia did not perform well in this population. Current health screening structures, the
education and expectations of those providing health screening were identified as further barriers to
MSK diagnosis. Facilitating early and accurate MSK diagnosis through the development of MSK
examination tools, targeted education and structuring services for this population are important for
the MSK and broader health of these children.
4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 3

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 17

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 20

2.1: Literature Search Method 20
2.2: Historical Perspective –
Classification of Down’s syndrome and John Langdon Down 21
2.3 Down’s syndrome – 26
2.3.1 Signs and symptoms 27
2.3.2 Health problems 27
2.3.2.1 Coronary defects 27
2.3.2.2 Thyroid disorders 27
2.3.2.3 Sensory problems 28
2.3.2.4 Gastrointestinal problems 28
2.3.2.5 Leukaemia 28
2.3.3 Prognosis and life expectancy 28
2.4: Recognised associated disorders in Down’s syndrome 29
2.5: Musculoskeletal disorders in DS – 2.5.1: Arthritis in Down’s syndrome 31
2.5.1.1Psoriatic arthritis 34
2.5.2: Atlanto-axial instability 35
2.5.3: Hypermobility 37
2.6: Hypotonia 38
2.7: Other orthopaedic and musculoskeletal disorders 41
2.8 Pain response in DS 42
2.9: Growth retardation 43
2.10: Podiatric disorders and gait 44
2.11 General care and screening 46
2.12 MSK screening in DS 48
2.13 Summary 48
5

CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY 50

3.1 Ethics - 3.1.1 Autonomy 51
3.1.2 Beneficence and non-maleficence 51
3.1.3 Justice 51
3.1.4 Informed consent 52
3.1.5 Ethics in research involving children 52
3.2 Subject identification and recruitment 55
3.3 Inclusion criteria 55
3.4 Exclusion criteria 55
3.5 Study visit examinations - 55
3.5.1 MSK examination 56
3.5.2 Arthritis 56
3.5.3Hypermobility 57
3.5.4 Enthesitis 58
3.5.5 Podiatric examination 59
3.5.6 Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis 62
3.5.7 Spine 62
3.5.8 Anthropometric measurements 63
3.5.9 Hypotonia 64
3.5.10 General 64
3.6 Validity of measurements and limitations 65

CHAPTER 4 FOCUS GROUPS 66

4.1 Introduction 66
4.2 Case Study 67
4.3 Methods 71
4.4 Parents - 4.4.1 Inclusion criteria 72
4.4.2 Exclusion criteria 72
4.4.3 Questions 72
4.4.4 Results 72
4.5 Paediatric Rheumatology Specialists - 4.5.1 Inclusion criteria 72
4.5.2 Exclusion criteria 73
4.5.3 Questions 73
4.5.4 Results 74
6

4.6 Community Paediatricians - 4.6.1 Inclusion criteria 75
4.6.2 Exclusion criteria 75
4.6.3 Questions 75
4.6.4 Results 76
4.7 Discussion 77
4.8 Limitations and clinical implications 79

CHAPTER 5 HYPERMOBILITY RESULTS 81

5.1 Introduction 81
5.2 Methods 82
5.3 Results – 5.3.1 Joint examination 83
5.3.2 Beighton scores 88
5.3.3 Brighton scores 94
5.3.4 Hypotonia 94
5.3.5 Anecdotal data 94
5.4 Discussion 97

CHAPTER 6 MUSCULOSKELETAL RESULTS 100

6.1 Introduction 100
6.2 Methods 101
6.3 Results - 6.3.1 Joint exam 102
6.3.2 Referral 102
6.3.3 Pain response 102
6.3.4 Anthropometric results 103
6.3.5 CHAQ results 103
6.3.6 Schober’s test results 103
6.4 Discussion 108

CHAPTER 7 PODIATRY RESULTS 111

7.1 Introduction 111
7.2 Methods 111
7.3 Podiatric examination 112
7.4 Results - 7.4.1 Footwear 113
7

7.4.2 Orthotic usage 113
7.4.3 Foot type 113
7.4.4 Foot posture 113
` 7.4.5 Metatarsal formula 113
7.4.6 Leg length discrepancy 121
7.4.7 Nail features and pathologies 121
7.4.8 Skin pathologies 121
7.5 Discussion 124

CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION 128

8.1 Study limitations 136
8.2 Recommendations and future work 137
8.3 Summary and Clinical Implications 138

REFERENCES 140

APPENDICES 159
8

LIST OF PICTURES

Frontispiece: Picture of girl with DS taken by John Langdon Down 2
(www.intellectualdisability.info)
Picture 2.1: John Langdon Down 21
(www.langdondowncentre.org.uk)
Picture 2.2: Normansfield Theatre 24
(www.langdondowncentre.org.uk)
Picture 2.3: Advert for Normansfield (www. langdondonwncentre.org.uk) 25
Picture 2.4: Picture of girls with DS taken by John Langdon Down 30
(www.intellectualdisability.info)
Picture 2.5: Picture of girls with DS taken by John Langdon Down 30
(www.intellectualdisability.info)
Picture 2.6: Picture of girl’s hands showing arthritic changes 32
Picture 2.7: Hypotonia in a newborn displaying head lag on pull to sitting and inability to support
posture in neutral suspension (Lott, 2012) 40
Picture 4.1: Swelling and deformity shown in front of knees in DS child with delayed diagnosis of
arthritis 69
Picture 4.2: Swelling and deformity shown in back of knees in DS child with delayed diagnosis of
arthritis 69
Picture 4.3: Wrist deformity and swelling in hands shown in DS child with delayed diagnosis of
arthritis 70
Picture 5.1: Picture of study participant showing hypermobile hips 99
Picture 7.1: Picture showing sub-talar pronation with hypermobility 120
Picture 7.2: Down’s foot showing wide gap between first and second metacarpal joints
(http://newborns.stanford.edu/PhotoGallery/Downs4.html) 127
9

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.1: The distribution of hypermobility in lower limbs of this DS study cohort 85
Table 5.2: The distribution of hypermobility in upper limbs of this DS study cohort 86
Table 5.3: The distribution of hypermobility in small joints and the neck joint in this
DS study cohort: MTPs; metetarsals: MCPs; metacarpals: PIPs; proximal
interphalangeal joints 87
Table 5.4: The distribution of Beighton scores in the study cohort of DS children (n=73) 89
Table 5.5: The comparison of Beighton scores from the DS study cohort with Beighton
scores from Clinch et al (2011) 90
Table 5.6: The comparison of Beighton scores between the sexes in Beighton scores <4
and <6 in the DS study cohort and Clinch et al (2011) cohort 91
Table 5.7: Table showing Beighton scores for 13-16 year olds within the DS
study cohort 92
Table 5.8: The distribution of Brighton major scores criteria in this DS study cohort 95
Table 5.9: The distribution of Brighton minor criteria in this DS study cohort 95
Table 5.10: Table showing distribution of CMAS scores within the study cohort 96
Table 6.1: Table showing limited joints found on examination: ST; subtalar:
TN; talonavicular: MCP; metacarpal joints: PIPs, proximal interphalangeal joints:
MTP; metatarsal joints 104
Table 6.2: Table showing the mean group comparisons against the Down’s
normative data (Styles et al, 2002) 105
Table 6.3: Table showing the mean group comparisons against the UK90 data 106
Table 6.4: Table showing the number of children with weight results outwith
normal values 107
Table 7.1: Table showing the difference between foot size and shoe size 114
Table 7.2: Table showing types of footwear worn 116