Carpal tunnel syndrome and exposure to work-related biomechanical stressors and chemicals: Findings from the Constances cohort

Yves Roquelaure; Ronan Garlantézec; Vincent Rousseau; Alexis Descatha; Bradley Evanoff; Stefano Mattioli; Marcel Goldberg; Marie Zins; Julie Bodin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0235051

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the effects of co-exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals on the risk of CTS in a large cohort of French workers.

Methods

Prospective study using the data collected at baseline and at the first 12 month-follow-up for the 18,018 participants included in the population-based Constances cohort between 2012 and 2015. CTS at follow-up and exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals at baseline were assessed using a self-administered questionnaire. Associations between CTS and co-exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals were studied using multivariate logistic regression models, adjusted for personal/medical factors.

Results

184 men (2.1%, 95%CI 1.8–2.4) and 331 women (3.6%, 3.2–3.9) free from chronic hand symptoms at baseline declared suffering from unilateral/bilateral CTS at follow-up. A potentiating effect of co-exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals on the risk of CTS was found for both genders, with higher OR in the co-exposure group (OR = 3.38 [2.29–5.01] in men and OR = 4.12 [2.73–6.21] in women) than in the biomechanical exposure group (OR = 2.14 [1.51–3.03] in men and OR = 2.19 [1.72–2.78] in women) compared to no exposure group.

Conclusions

The study showed an association between CTS and co-exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals, after adjustment for the main personal and medical factors. This finding should be confirmed using more objective case definition of CTS and assessment of the chemical exposure before drawing conclusions on the possible synergistic effects of mechanical stressors and chemical on the median nerve.

Citation: Roquelaure Y, Garlantézec R, Rousseau V, Descatha A, Evanoff B, Mattioli S, et al. (2020) Carpal tunnel syndrome and exposure to work-related biomechanical stressors and chemicals: Findings from the Constances cohort. PLoS ONE 15(6): e0235051. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235051

Editor: Ethan Morgan, Ohio State University, UNITED STATES

Received: January 8, 2020; Accepted: June 2, 2020; Published: June 25, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Roquelaure et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The dataset used for this study is third-party data and not publicly available to ensure the confidentiality of study participants. Nevertheless, they are accessible providing authorizations from the National Data Protection Authority, the INSERM Institutional Review Board and the CONSTANCES’ scientific committee. The procedure to access data from the CONSTANCES cohort is available on the web page https://www.constances.fr/conduct-project-ongoing.php. Colleagues interested in replicating our findings are encouraged to contact Julie Bodin. The authors did not have any special access privileges that others would not have.

Funding: The CONSTANCES Cohort Study is supported by the Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Maladie (CNAM), the French Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Research, the Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale. CONSTANCES benefits from a grant from the French National Research Agency [grant number ANR-11-INBS-0002] and is also partly funded by MSD, AstraZeneca and Lundbeck. This work was also supported by the French National Research Program for Environmental and Occupational Health of Anses (EST-2014/1/077). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of this manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have read the journal’s policy and have the following competing interests: The CONSTANCES study was partly funded by MSD, AstraZeneca and Lundbeck. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Introduction

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common entrapment neuropathy in the general population as well as the working population [1]. CTS is a leading cause of surgery and occupational diseases (OD) in many industrialized countries [1,2].

CTS is responsible for numbness, tingling, or burning sensation, and/or pain in the median nerve innervated areas of the hand. CTS could lead to decreased digit force production and dexterity impairing precision pinch movements and fine manual tasks during working and daily activities [3].

Certain personal characteristics (e.g., age, gender) [4,5] and medical conditions (e.g., obesity, diabetes mellitus, arthritis) [6–8] increase the risk of CTS. Working conditions exposing workers to biomechanical stressors are known to increase the incidence of CTS, namely repetitive movements, hand-arm transmitted vibration, and forceful manual exertion [1,9–14]. The relationships between CTS and work-related psychological stressors, such as job stain, are less well established [15,16]. In contrast to personal and medical risk factors for CTS, occupational risk factors can be modified by preventive interventions in the workplace.

Most studies on CTS focused on the personal factors and work-related exposure to biomechanical and psychosocial stressors, while workers are often co-exposed to biomechanical stressors, psychosocial factors, and chemical agents in the real working conditions. This is particularly true in some occupations and industry sectors at high risk for CTS (e.g., construction and cleaning sectors), and justifies an integrative approach of the work exposure [17,18]. We still lack epidemiological data on the possible impact of chemical exposure on the risk of CTS, despite the potential neurotoxic effects of some chemicals (e.g., n-hexane) [19–22]. The frequent biomechanical and chemical co-exposure [23] raises the question of potential synergistic effects of mechanical stressors and neurotoxic chemicals on the risk of CTS according to several putative mechanisms. Exposure to chemicals may generate diffuse subtle nerve damage rendering the median nerve more prone to entrapment at the carpal tunnel. This may potentiate, as is suggested for diabetic polyneuropathy, the effects of mechanical stress during tasks exposing to both biomechanical wrist stressors and neurotoxic chemicals [24,25].

A scoping review executed through PubMed on November the 9th 2019, using the MeSH Term “carpal tunnel syndrome” and some terms referring to neurotoxic agents (chemical substance* OR insecticide* OR lead poisoning [MH] OR neurotoxi* OR particulate OR pesticide* OR pollution OR solvent* OR toxic), permitted us to retrieve 68 citations. Out of these citations, 6 articles seemed to be pertinent in some way. The oldest one was by Bleecker in 1986, the author proposed to examine the vibration perception of workers co-exposed to neurotoxic agents and to biomechanical overload of hand and forearm, with the aim to consider the possible co-presence of damages due to chemical substances and to nerve compression [26]. Among the others papers, two were regarding co-exposure to pesticides [27,28], one was concerning the low-level chronic exposure to lead [29], one was on Toxic Oil Syndrome [30], and the last-one regarded particulate matter [31].

The present study aimed to investigate prospectively the effects of co-exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals on the risk of CTS in a large cohort of French workers. The main hypothesis of the study was a potentiating effect of co-exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors and potentially neurotoxic chemicals on the risk of CTS.

Methods

Study population

The Constances study was approved by authorities regulating ethical data collection in France (CCTIRS: Comité Consultatif pour le Traitement des Informations Relatives à la Santé; CNIL-Commission Nationale Informatique et Liberté) and all participants signed an informed consent.

The Constances cohort is a national population-based cohort of randomly recruited participants, including volunteers aged 18–69 years at baseline recruited in 22 selected Health Screening Centers (HSC) from the principal regions of France [32]. Using a random sampling strategy stratified according to unequal inclusion probabilities, participants were invited to participate, with a response rate of 7.3% [32]. At inclusion, the selected subjects are invited to complete questionnaires and to attend a HSC for a comprehensive health examination. The follow-up includes a yearly self-administered questionnaire [32].

Data

The present study used the data collected by questionnaire at baseline and at the first 12 month-follow-up for the 39,487 participants included between 2012 and 2015 (S1 Fig and S1 File). We excluded subjects with the following characteristics at baseline: 1) participants professionally non active at baseline (n = 14,240), 2) self-declared CTS or chronic hand symptoms at baseline (n = 2,295), 3) pregnant women at follow up (n = 333) and 4) workers with missing data for at least one of the variables studied (n = 4,601). Finally, 18,018 persons (8,733 men and 9,285 women) with complete data have been included in the study.

Risk factors at baseline

Personal and medical risk factors.

Age was dichotomized in two classes (< 45 yrs, ≥ 45 yrs). Body mass index (BMI) was categorized in three classes (< 25, ≥ 25–30, ≥ 30 Kg/m²). The information on diabetes mellitus and rheumatoid arthritis (whether requiring prescription drugs or not) was grouped in a new variable (medical problems) due to the small number of cases. Alcohol use disorders (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C)) [33] were self-assessed.

Work-related psychosocial factor.

Effort–reward imbalance (ERI) was assessed at baseline using the French short version of the Siegrist’s questionnaire [34].

Work-related biomechanical stressors.

Biomechanical exposure in the 12 month period preceding baseline was assessed by questionnaire using definitions of the European criteria document for the relatedness of MSDs [35].

“Biomechanical wrist exposure” was defined as exposure to at least one of the following factors:

High biomechanical perceived exertion (score ≥12 on the Borg rating of Perceived Exertion scale (20-RPE), graduated from 6 (‘very, very light’) to 20 (‘maximum exertion’)).
Repetitive hand movements (performing more than two actions per minute for more than 4 hours / day),
Hand-transmitted vibrations (use of a vibrating hand-tool for more than 2 hours / day),
Awkward wrist postures (repetitive or sustained wrist bending for more than 2 hours / day),
Repetitive pinching (holding tools/objects in a pinch grip for more than 4 hours / day),

Work-related exposure to chemicals.

Six potentially neurotoxic chemical product groups were identified among the 36 chemicals (generic names) and mixtures of chemicals under study according to several classification methods of neurotoxicity [18–22,36,37]: trichloroethylene, white spirit (mineral spirits), cellulosic diluent, paints and varnishes, inks and dyes, and pesticides (weed killers, insecticides, fungicides). Chemical exposure to at least one of the six potentially neurotoxic chemicals was assessed for each respondent’s entire occupational life.

An exposure variable to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals was created according to the four following categories:

No exposure group: no exposure to any of the five biomechanical wrist stressors and no exposure to any of the six chemicals,
Chemical exposure group: only exposure to at least one of the six chemicals,
Biomechanical exposure group: only exposure to at least one of the five biomechanical wrist constraints,
Co-exposure group: exposure to both biomechanical wrist stressors (at least one of the five) and chemicals (at least one of the six).

Outcome at follow-up

At the 12-month follow-up, 49 health problems were self-assessed via a self-administered questionnaire. CTS was assessed by answering the question: “Do you suffer or have you suffered from CTS in the last 12 months (whether CTS required sick leave or not and/or treatment or not)?”.

Statistical analyses

Comparison between men and women were studied by Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests.

Univariate logistic regression analyses were run to test the associations between the occurrence of CTS and potential risk factors at baseline in men and women separately [38]. Then, five multivariate logistic regressions were performed:

Model 1: Including personal and medical risk factors; all personal and medical factors were forced into the models because of their well-known association with CTS in the literature (e.g. age, BMI, medical problems, current alcohol consumption). High effort-reward imbalance (ERI ratio > 1) was retained in the models because of association with CTS (p<0.20) in the univariate analysis.
Model 2: Biomechanical wrist exposure added to model 1;
Model 3: Chemical exposure added to model 1;
Model 4: Exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemical exposure including a co-exposure group added to model 1 to assess the effect of co-exposure.

Interaction between biomechanical wrist exposure and chemical exposure was tested and was not significant (p = 0.300 in men and p = 0.205 in women). A sensitivity analysis was performed for a subpopulation restricted to low-grade white-collar workers and blue-collar workers. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 using the logistic procedure. Results are presented as Odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). A p value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

Participant characteristics

A description of the 8,733 men and 9,285 women is given in Table 1. The majority of men were managers, professionals (48.9%), and professional or technical workers (25.6%) and, to a lesser extent, blue collar workers (15.0%) and lower-level white-collar workers (8.9%). The majority of women were professional or technical workers (38.4%), managers, teachers (30.9%), and lower-level white-collar workers (27.7%); few women were blue-collar workers (2.4%) (Table 1).

Download:

Table 1. Personal/medical factors and exposure to work-related factors in men and women.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235051.t001

184 men (2.1%, 95% CI 1.8–2.4) and 331 women (3.6%, 95% CI 3.2–3.9) free from chronic hand symptoms at baseline declared suffering from unilateral/bilateral CTS at follow-up, whether CTS required sick leave or not and/or treatment or not.

The prevalence of obesity (BMI ≥30) was relatively low (men, 9.2% and women, 9.2%), contrary to the prevalence of overweight (BMI ≥25 and <30) in men (38.0%) and, to a lesser extent, in women (20.5%). Few men (2.5%) and women (2.0%) suffered from diabetes mellitus and/or rheumatoid arthritis. A minority of men (10.0%) and women (4.0%) suffered from alcohol used disorders (Table 1).

Regarding exposure to work-related psychosocial factor, high effort–reward imbalance (ERI ratio > 1) was reported by almost half of the workers (men, 46.4%, women, 51.3%).

Regarding exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors (in the 12 month period preceding baseline), almost 4 out 10 workers (men, 37.9%, women, 42.1%) were exposed to at least one of the five biomechanical wrist stressors under study. The main biomechanical stressors were high perceived biomechanical exertion (men, 28.2%, women, 28.8%), repetitive hand movements (men, 10.4%, women, 15.2%), frequent awkward wrist postures (men, 11.0%, women, 9.1%), repetitive/forceful pinch grips (men, 5.1%, women, 6.8%), and hand-transmitted vibrations (men, 5.1%, women, 1.2%) (Table 1).

Regarding exposure to chemical exposure (for the entire occupational life), 17.7% of men and 5.7% of women were or have been exposed to at least one of the six potentially neurotoxic chemical products under study during their entire working life (Table 1). The main exposure concerned trichlorethylene (men, 6.8%, women, 1.4%) and white spirit (mineral spirit) (men, 7.4%, women, 1.4%), paints and varnishes (men, 7.6%, women, 2.1%), and pesticides (men, 4.0%, women, 1.4%). (See Table 1 for more details).

Regarding exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals, the majority of men (55.3%) and women (55.9%) were unexposed to both biomechanical stressors and chemicals (no exposure group), 6.8% of men and 2.0% of women uniquely to chemicals (chemical exposure group) and 27.0% of men and 38.4% of women were uniquely exposed to biomechanical wrist stressors (biomechanical exposure group). Only 10.9% of men and 3.7% of women were co-exposed to chemical agents and biomechanical wrist stressors (co-exposure group) (Table 1).

As shown in S1 Table, the four groups differed according to the distribution of the occupational category with a higher proportion of blue-collar workers in the co-exposure group. The difference between the distribution of personal risk factors for CTS (age, overweight, and obesity) in the exposure groups were not clinically significant. In men, exposure to each of the five biomechanical wrist stressors differed between the co-exposure and the biomechanical exposure groups, with lower repetitive hand movements in the co-exposure group, and higher repetitive pinching, awkward wrist postures, biomechanical perceived exertion and, above all, hand-transmitted vibrations. In women, the prevalence did not differ for repetitive pinching, while exposure to repetitive hand movements, awkward wrist postures, hand-transmitted vibrations and high biomechanical perceived exertion were more frequent in co-exposed women. Exposure to some chemicals differed between the chemical exposure and co-exposure groups for both genders, including white spirit, diluents, and paints in men, and pesticides, ink and dyes in women.

Risk models for CTS

Tables 2 and 3 show the multivariate risk models for CTS adjusted on personal and medical factors (model 1), exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors (model 2), chemicals (model 3), and exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals (model 4).

Download:

Table 2. Univariate and multivariate risk models for CTS in men (N = 8,733).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235051.t002

Download:

Table 3. Univariate and multivariate risk models for CTS in women (N = 9,285).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235051.t003

Concerning personal/medical factors, age > 45 yrs was associated with CTS, with similar odds ratios for all models: ~1.7 for men and 1.5 for women. No statistical association was found with diabetes mellitus and/or rheumatoid arthritis for both genders, regardless of the model. High BMI was associated with CTS, with OR for overweight and obesity reaching ~ 1.4 and ~1.9 in men and ~ 1.3 and ~1.9 in women, respectively. Alcohol use disorders was not associated with CTS in either gender (Tables 2 and 3).

Concerning psychosocial work-related factors, high effort–reward imbalance (ERI ratio > 1) was associated with CTS in women, regardless of the model (OR ~ 1.5–1.6, p<0.001). The association in men was less strong (OR ~1.3) and not statistically significant for all models.

Concerning biomechanical work-related stressors, CTS was associated with exposure to at least one biomechanical wrist stressor for both genders (p<0.001) after adjustment for personal/medical factors (model 2, OR = 2.49 [1.85–3.37] in men and OR = 2.36 [1.87–2.97] in women).

Concerning chemical exposure, an increased risk of CTS was observed in workers exposed to chemicals after adjustment for personal/medical factors (model 3) in men (OR = 1.77 [1.28–2.46]) and women (OR = 2.00 [1.39–2.86]).

As shown in model 4, a statistically significant association (p<0.001) was found for both genders between CTS and co-exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals, without increased risk in the chemical exposure group (without exposure to biomechanical activity). The risk of CTS approximately doubled in the biomechanical exposure group (OR = 2.14 [1.51–3.03] in men and OR = 2.19 [1.72–2.78] in women) and approximately tripled in men (OR = 3.38 [2.29–5.01]) and quadrupled in women (OR = 4.12 [2.73–6.21] in the co-exposure group compared to non-exposed workers, after adjustment for personal/medical factors and ERI ratio. The study showed a higher risk of CTS for workers co-exposed to biomechanical wrist stressors and neurotoxic chemicals in comparison to those uniquely exposed to biomechanical wrist stressors (p = 0.021 in men and p = 0.002 in women) or solely exposed to chemicals (p = 0.0001 in men and p = 0.006 in women). As shown in S2 and S3 Tables, the risk models were globally similar when the population studied was restricted to male and female lower-level white-collar workers and blue-collar workers.

Discussion

At our knowledge, this is the first time that a study investigated prospectively the effects of co-exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals on the risk of CTS. Our study in a large cohort of French professionally active adults found consistent associations between CTS and co-exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals in both genders after adjustment for the personal and medical factors and ERI ratio. Importantly, the risk of CTS was approximately tripled or quadrupled in the co-exposed men and women, while it was doubled for those uniquely exposed to biomechanical wrist stressors.

Results

The incidence of CTS in the Constances cohort was of the same order of magnitude as found in a previous French cohort conducted among the general working population of a French region [39]. The higher incidence of CTS observed in women, as the higher risk of incident CTS in older workers, are in line with previous longitudinal studies in the general [2,4,40,41] and working populations [12,39,42–44]. No statistical association was found with diabetes mellitus and/or rheumatoid arthritis, contrary to some epidemiological studies in the general population [7,9]. The study confirms previous epidemiological studies showing an association between CTS, overweight and above all obesity [6,12,44]. Adipose tissue within the carpal tunnel may gradually tighten the tunnel and increase the intracarpal pressure [45]. Obesity, as a component of the metabolic syndrome, may be associated with peripheral neuropathy, that can render the median nerve more vulnerable for compression within the carpal tunnel and against the volar ligament [6]. No increase of the risk of CTS was observed between CTS and alcohol use disorders contrary to some findings in the general population [41,46].

The study confirms the association of CTS with repetitive and/or forceful hand movements, wrist bending and hand-transmitted vibrations reported in the literature [1,10–14]. Biomechanical stressors can increase the pressure in the carpal tunnel at the wrist and lead to mechanical injury due to traction and contact stress on the median nerve [47]. The association found between CTS and effort-reward imbalance in women agrees with some epidemiological studies showing an association between CTS and work-related psychological factors, although most of them concerned the demand-control model and not the ERI model of stress at work [10,11,15,16,48].

The study showed, in both genders, a higher risk of CTS for workers co-exposed to biomechanical wrist stressors and neurotoxic chemicals in comparison to those uniquely exposed to biomechanical wrist stressors or solely exposed to chemicals, after adjustment for the main confounding factors.

Little epidemiological data is available on the impact of chemical exposure on the risk of CTS despite their potential neurotoxicity [20–22,26–29,31,36,37,49]. Chemical exposure was taken into account in a case-control study of CTS conducted in the general population of Wisconsin, but no significant association was found with CTS after adjustment for the main personal, medical and biomechanical risks [50]. A descriptive study conducted in Israeli workers exposed to prolonged low-level organophosphate exposure reported an increased risk of CTS-like symptoms [28]. Systemic peripheral neuropathies (e.g., diabetic polyneuropathy) are known to generate and diffuse subtle nerve damage, thus rendering the median nerve more vulnerable for compression within the carpal tunnel and against the volar ligament in the case of overexposure to biomechanical stressors [25,51]. According to the same reasoning, exposure to chemicals may generate subclinical changes of the median nerve [28] potentiating the mechanical stress on the nerve in cases of co-exposure to biomechanical wrist stressors. Beside impairments of the peripheral nervous system, subclinical changes of the central nervous system (CNS) may occur in workers exposed to neurotoxic chemicals decreasing the fine motor skills and sensorimotor control of finger force production [52,53]. Such CNS impairments, the most severe form being chronic solvent induced encephalopathy (CSE), may contribute to decreased motor control of finger force production and dexterity in workers performing repetitive prehensile movements, leading to lower dexterity and inefficient working performance [3]. This, in turn, may generate higher biomechanical wrist stressors and mechanical stress of the median nerve accentuating the risk of CTS in workers co-exposed to biomechanical wrist stressors. [3].

The higher risk of CTS in the co-exposure group may reflect synergic effects of biomechanical stressors and chemicals. We cannot exclude that exposure to chemicals might also be a marker for greater hand force being used at work. Given the rather crude self-reported hand-wrist exposure data, it may be that part of the effect of combined exposure is actually due to greater hand-wrist exposures. Indeed, the proportion of blue-collar workers was higher among the co-exposed and it would expect that blue-collar workers were more likely to report chemical exposure, and may have more strenuous hand use than white collar workers reporting the same level of hand use. Nevertheless, the risk models were globally similar when the population studied was restricted to lower-level white-collar workers and blue-collar workers.

Strengths and limitations of the study.

The prospective design is one of the major strengths of the study. The Constances cohort includes a large sample of employed men and women of various age groups from different regions in France, covering a variety of occupational groups. The cohort provides a comprehensive assessment of socio-demographic, occupational and biomedical data meeting high quality standards of data collection, most of the measures having been validated in previous investigations [32]. The study sample does not represent the whole structure of professions and occupations in France as it practically excludes self-employed persons and farmers. The potential selection effects due to voluntary participation do not threaten the generalizability of results according to preliminary results of the comparison between Constances’ volunteers and a ‘control cohort’ of 400,000 nonparticipants [32], [54]. Thus, the low response rate may not affect the reported associations between co-exposure to biomechanical stressors and chemicals and CTS.

Since CTS and exposure were self-reported, we cannot exclude an inverse causality bias leading the workers most exposed to biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals at baseline to declare more CTS at follow-up. The definition of CTS lacked specificity leading to possible misclassification bias and mild cases of CTS may have been under declared when answering the questionnaire. Due to the lack of physical examination, we cannot exclude that some cases of CTS were associated with finger flexor tendinitis or trigger finger because of overlapping symptoms. The main potential personal and medical risk factors for CTS and/or peripheral neuropathy (age, BMI, diabetes mellitus and/or arthritis, and alcohol consumption) were taken into account by the statistical models. Tobacco consumption was not retained in the models due to insufficient statistical fit of the models. Moreover associations between CTS and smoking status is uncertain and have not been assessed with adequate power in occupational studies [12,46]. Few chemicals were assessed and we cannot exclude exposure to other neurotoxic chemicals which may lead to possible misclassification of exposure. Because exposure information was self-reported, error (misclassification) in exposure estimation may have occurred due to poor recall.

Conclusion.

This large prospective study showed higher risk of CTS in workers co-exposed to both biomechanical wrist stressors and chemicals compared to non-exposed workers, after adjustment for the main personal and medical factors. This finding supports the hypothesis of potentiating effects of chemical exposure on the risk of CTS in workers exposed to biomechanical wrist stressors. Nevertheless, future studies should confirm this result using more objective case definition of CTS (e.g., surgical cases of CTS) and chemical exposure assessment (e.g., job exposure matrix) before drawing conclusions on the synergic effects between mechanical intra-carpal stress and neurotoxic impairment of the risk of CTS.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Study population flowchart.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235051.s001

(TIF)

S1 File. Extract from the inclusion and follow-up questionnaires.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235051.s002

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Distribution of the occupational category and personal, and potential work-related risk factors according the co-exposure groups in men (N = 8,733) and women (N = 9,285).

Nmiss: Number of missing values. In bold, P < 0.05. *: Test exact de Fisher. α: Technicians and associate professionals perform mostly technical and related tasks and teach at certain educational levels. Most occupations in this group require skills at the third ISCO level (education which begins at the age of 17 or 18 years and leads to an award not equivalent to a first university degree). β: The blue collar worker’ category includes skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers (ISCO-08 group 6) and agricultural, forestry and fishery labourers (ISCO-08 group 9, elementary occupations).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235051.s003

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Univariate and multivariate risk models for CTS in male (N = 1,574) low grade white collar and blue-collar workers.

OR: odds-ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; BMI: body mass index. In bold, P < 0.05. Model 1: Including personal and medical risk factors; Model 2: Biomechanical wrist exposure added to model 1; Model 3: Chemical exposure added to model 1; Model 4: Exposure to Biomechanical wrist stressors and chemical exposure including a co-exposure group added to model 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235051.s004

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Univariate and multivariate risk models for CTS in female (N = 2,280) low grade white collar and blue-collar workers.

OR: odds-ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; BMI: body mass index. In bold, P < 0.05. Model 1: Including personal and medical risk factors; Model 2: Biomechanical wrist exposure added to model 1; Model 3: Chemical exposure added to model 1; Model 4: Exposure to Biomechanical wrist stressors and chemical exposure including a co-exposure group added to model 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235051.s005

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their thanks to Nathalie Bonvallot and Joël Eyer for their fruitful comments on the results.

References

1. Palmer KT. Carpal tunnel syndrome: The role of occupational factors. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011;25: 15–29. pmid:21663847
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Roquelaure Y, Chazelle E, Gautier L, Plaine J, Descatha A, Evanoff B, et al. Time trends in incidence and prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome over eight years according to multiple data sources: Pays de la Loire study. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43: 75–85. pmid:27631820
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Li K, Evans PJ, Seitz WH, Li Z-M. Carpal tunnel syndrome impairs sustained precision pinch performance. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;126: 194–201. pmid:24877682
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Mattioli S, Baldasseroni A, Curti S, Cooke RMT, Bena A, de Giacomi G, et al. Incidence rates of in-hospital carpal tunnel syndrome in the general population and possible associations with marital status. BMC Public Health. 2008;8: 374. pmid:18957090
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Mondelli M, Curti S, Mattioli S, Aretini A, Ginanneschi F, Greco G, et al. Associations Between Body Anthropometric Measures and Severity of Carpal Tunnel. Syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97: 1456–1464. pmid:27130638
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Shiri R, Pourmemari MH, Falah-Hassani K, Viikari-Juntura E. The effect of excess body mass on the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of 58 studies. Obes Rev. 2015;16: 1094–1104. pmid:26395787
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Pourmemari MH, Shiri R. Diabetes as a risk factor for carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2016;33: 10–16. pmid:26173490
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Shiri R. Arthritis as a risk factor for carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis. Scand J Rheumatol. 2016;45: 339–46. pmid:27022991
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Mattioli S, Baldasseroni A, Bovenzi M, Curti S, Cooke RMT, Campo G, et al. Risk factors for operated carpal tunnel syndrome: a multicenter population-based case-control study. BMC Public Health. 2009;9: 343. pmid:19758429
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. van Rijn RM, Huisstede BMA, Koes BW, Burdorf A. Associations between work-related factors and the carpal tunnel syndrome—a systematic review. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2009;35: 19–36. pmid:19277433
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Barcenilla A, March LM, Chen JS, Sambrook PN. Carpal tunnel syndrome and its relationship to occupation: a meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012;51: 250–261. pmid:21586523
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Harris-Adamson C, Eisen EA, Dale AM, Evanoff B, Hegmann KT, Thiese MS, et al. Personal and workplace psychosocial risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome: a pooled study cohort. Occup Environ Med. 2013;70: 529–537. pmid:23645610
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. You D, Smith AH, Rempel D. Meta-analysis: association between wrist posture and carpal tunnel syndrome among workers. Saf Health Work. 2014;5: 27–31. pmid:24932417
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Kozak A, Schedlbauer G, Wirth T, Euler U, Westermann C, Nienhaus A. Association between work-related biomechanical risk factors and the occurrence of carpal tunnel syndrome: an overview of systematic reviews and a meta-analysis of current research. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16: 231. pmid:26323649
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Harris-Adamson C, Eisen EA, Neophytou A, Kapellusch J, Garg A, Hegmann KT, et al. Biomechanical and psychosocial exposures are independent risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome: assessment of confounding using causal diagrams. Occup Environ Med. 2016;73: 727–734. pmid:27466616
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Mansfield M, Thacker M, Sandford F. Psychosocial Risk Factors and the Association With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review. Hand (N Y). 2018;13: 501–508. pmid:29078710
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Roquelaure Y. Promoting a Shared Representation of Workers’ Activities to Improve Integrated Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders. Saf Health Work. 2016;7: 171–174. pmid:27340607
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Nguyen T-H-Y, Bertin M, Bodin J, Fouquet N, Bonvallot N, Roquelaure Y. Multiple Exposures and Coexposures to Occupational Hazards Among Agricultural Workers: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies. Safety and Health at Work. 2018; 9(3): 239–248. pmid:30370155
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Vela MM, Laborda R, García AM. Neurotóxicos en el ambiente laboral: criterios de clasificación y listado provisional. Arch Prev Riesgos Labor 2003; 6(1):17–25.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Simonsen L, Johnsen H, Lund SP, Matikainen E, Midtgård U, Wennberg A. Methodological approach to the evaluation of neurotoxicity data and the classification of neurotoxic chemicals. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1994;20: 1–12. pmid:8016593
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Spencer PS, Schaumburg HH, Ludolph AC, editors. Experimental and clinical neurotoxicology. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.
22. Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. Lancet. 2006;368: 2167–2178. pmid:17174709
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Bertin M, Nguyen T-H-Y, Bonvallot N, Bodin J, Roquelaure Y. Occupational co-exposure to biomechanical factors and neurotoxic chemicals in a representative sample of French employees. J Occup Health. 2019. pmid:31747116
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Schmid AB, Coppieters MW. The double crush syndrome revisited—a Delphi study to reveal current expert views on mechanisms underlying dual nerve disorders. Man Ther. 2011;16: 557–562. pmid:21646036
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Rota E, Morelli N. Entrapment neuropathies in diabetes mellitus. World J Diabetes. 2016;7: 342–353. pmid:27660694
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Bleecker ML. Vibration perception thresholds in entrapment and toxic neuropathies. J Occup Med. 1986;28: 991–994. pmid:3772554
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Calvert GM, Mueller CA, Fajen JM, Chrislip DW, Russo J, Briggle T, et al. Health effects associated with sulfuryl fluoride and methyl bromide exposure among structural fumigation workers. Am J Public Health. 1998;88: 1774–1780. pmid:9842373
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Ophir A, Karakis I, Richter ED, Abarbanel JM, Wormser U, Aschner M, et al. An uncommon pattern of polyneuropathy induced by lifetime exposures to drift containing organophosphate pesticides. Neurotoxicology. 2014;45: 338–346. pmid:25128617
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Nora DB, Gomes I, Said G, Carvalho FM, Melo A. Modifications of the sympathetic skin response in workers chronically exposed to lead. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2007;40: 81–87. pmid:17225000
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Estirado de Cabo E, Posada de la Paz M, de Andrés Copa P, Plaza Cano M del M, García de Aguinaga ML, Suarez Alvarez C, et al. Carpal tunnel syndrome. A new feature in the natural history of TOS? Eur J Epidemiol. 2003;18: 983–993. pmid:14598929
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Weng C-H, Hu C-C, Yen T-H, Huang W-H. Association Between Environmental Particulate Matter and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2017;42: 827–836. pmid:29161700
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Goldberg M, Carton M, Descatha A, Leclerc A, Roquelaure Y, Santin G, et al. CONSTANCES: a general prospective population-based cohort for occupational and environmental epidemiology: cohort profile. Occup Environ Med. 2017;74: 66–71. pmid:27884936
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Bush K, Kivlahan DR, McDonell MB, Fihn SD, Bradley KA, for the Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP). The audit alcohol consumption questions (audit-c): An effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158: 1789–1795. pmid:9738608
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Siegrist J, Wahrendorf M, Goldberg M, Zins M, Hoven H. Is effort-reward imbalance at work associated with different domains of health functioning? Baseline results from the French CONSTANCES study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2019;92: 467–480. pmid:30406331
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Sluiter JK, Rest KM, Frings-Dresen MH. Criteria document for evaluating the work-relatedness of upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2001;27 Suppl 1: 1–102.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. LoPachin RM, Gavin T. Toxic Neuropathies: Mechanistic Insights Based On A Chemical Perspective. Neurosci Lett. 2015;596: 78–83. pmid:25218479
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Richardson JR, Fitsanakis V, Westerink RHS, Kanthasamy AG. Neurotoxicity of pesticides. Acta Neuropathol. 2019;138: 343–362. pmid:31197504
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Silverstein B, Fan ZJ, Smith CK, Bao S, Howard N, Spielholz P, et al. Gender adjustment or stratification in discerning upper extremity musculoskeletal disorder risk? Scand J Work Environ Health. 2009;35: 113–126. pmid:19294319
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Petit A, Ha C, Bodin J, Rigouin P, Descatha A, Brunet R, et al. Risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome related to the work organization: A prospective surveillance study in a large working population. Applied Ergonomics. 2015;47: 1–10. pmid:25479968
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Mondelli M, Giannini F, Giacchi M. Carpal tunnel syndrome incidence in a general population. Neurology. 2002;58: 289–294. pmid:11805259
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Bland J, Rudolfer S. Clinical surveillance of carpal tunnel syndrome in two areas of the United Kingdom, 1991–2001. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003;74: 1674–1679. pmid:14638888
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. da Costa BR, Vieira ER. Risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review of recent longitudinal studies. Am J Ind Med. 2010;53: 285–323. pmid:19753591
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Dale AM, Harris-Adamson C, Rempel D, Gerr F, Hegmann K, Silverstein B, et al. Prevalence and incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome in US working populations: pooled analysis of six prospective studies. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2013;39: 495–505. pmid:23423472
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Violante FS, Farioli A, Graziosi F, Marinelli F, Curti S, Armstrong TJ, et al. Carpal tunnel syndrome and manual work: the OCTOPUS cohort, results of a ten-year longitudinal study. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2016;42: 280–290. pmid:27159901
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Bland JDP. The relationship of obesity, age, and carpal tunnel syndrome: more complex than was thought? Muscle Nerve. 2005;32: 527–532. pmid:16025527
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Pourmemari M-H, Viikari-Juntura E, Shiri R. Smoking and carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis. Muscle Nerve. 2014;49: 345–350. pmid:23761223
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Viikari-Juntura E, Silverstein B. Role of physical load factors in carpal tunnel syndrome. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1999;25: 163–185. pmid:10450768
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Koch P, Schablon A, Latza U, Nienhaus A. Musculoskeletal pain and effort-reward imbalance—a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2014;14: 37. pmid:24428955
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Park SK, Kong KA, Cha ES, Lee YJ, Lee GT, Lee WJ. Occupational exposure to pesticides and nerve conduction studies among Korean farmers. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2012;67: 78–83. pmid:22524647
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Nordstrom DL, Vierkant RA, DeStefano F, Layde PM. Risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome in a general population. Occup Environ Med. 1997;54: 734–740. pmid:9404321
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Horinouchi S, Deguchi T, Arimura K, Arimura A, Dochi Y, Uto T, et al. Median neuropathy at the wrist as an early manifestation of diabetic neuropathy. J Diabetes Investig. 2014;5: 709–713. pmid:25422772
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. van Valen E, Wekking E, van der Laan G, Sprangers M, van Dijk F. The course of chronic solvent induced encephalopathy: a systematic review. Neurotoxicology. 2009;30: 1172–1186. pmid:19538991
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Kim E-A, Kang S-K. Occupational neurological disorders in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2010;25: S26–35. pmid:21258587
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Rothman KJ, Gallacher JEJ, Hatch EE. Why representativeness should be avoided. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42: 1012–1014. pmid:24062287
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Palmer KT. Carpal tunnel syndrome: The role of occupational factors. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011;25: 15–29. pmid:21663847
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Roquelaure Y, Chazelle E, Gautier L, Plaine J, Descatha A, Evanoff B, et al. Time trends in incidence and prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome over eight years according to multiple data sources: Pays de la Loire study. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43: 75–85. pmid:27631820
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Li K, Evans PJ, Seitz WH, Li Z-M. Carpal tunnel syndrome impairs sustained precision pinch performance. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;126: 194–201. pmid:24877682
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Mattioli S, Baldasseroni A, Curti S, Cooke RMT, Bena A, de Giacomi G, et al. Incidence rates of in-hospital carpal tunnel syndrome in the general population and possible associations with marital status. BMC Public Health. 2008;8: 374. pmid:18957090
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Mondelli M, Curti S, Mattioli S, Aretini A, Ginanneschi F, Greco G, et al. Associations Between Body Anthropometric Measures and Severity of Carpal Tunnel. Syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97: 1456–1464. pmid:27130638
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Shiri R, Pourmemari MH, Falah-Hassani K, Viikari-Juntura E. The effect of excess body mass on the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of 58 studies. Obes Rev. 2015;16: 1094–1104. pmid:26395787
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Pourmemari MH, Shiri R. Diabetes as a risk factor for carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2016;33: 10–16. pmid:26173490
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Shiri R. Arthritis as a risk factor for carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis. Scand J Rheumatol. 2016;45: 339–46. pmid:27022991
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Mattioli S, Baldasseroni A, Bovenzi M, Curti S, Cooke RMT, Campo G, et al. Risk factors for operated carpal tunnel syndrome: a multicenter population-based case-control study. BMC Public Health. 2009;9: 343. pmid:19758429
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. van Rijn RM, Huisstede BMA, Koes BW, Burdorf A. Associations between work-related factors and the carpal tunnel syndrome—a systematic review. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2009;35: 19–36. pmid:19277433
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Barcenilla A, March LM, Chen JS, Sambrook PN. Carpal tunnel syndrome and its relationship to occupation: a meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012;51: 250–261. pmid:21586523
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Harris-Adamson C, Eisen EA, Dale AM, Evanoff B, Hegmann KT, Thiese MS, et al. Personal and workplace psychosocial risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome: a pooled study cohort. Occup Environ Med. 2013;70: 529–537. pmid:23645610
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. You D, Smith AH, Rempel D. Meta-analysis: association between wrist posture and carpal tunnel syndrome among workers. Saf Health Work. 2014;5: 27–31. pmid:24932417
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] PubMed/NCBI

[52] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Kozak A, Schedlbauer G, Wirth T, Euler U, Westermann C, Nienhaus A. Association between work-related biomechanical risk factors and the occurrence of carpal tunnel syndrome: an overview of systematic reviews and a meta-analysis of current research. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16: 231. pmid:26323649
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] PubMed/NCBI

[56] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Harris-Adamson C, Eisen EA, Neophytou A, Kapellusch J, Garg A, Hegmann KT, et al. Biomechanical and psychosocial exposures are independent risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome: assessment of confounding using causal diagrams. Occup Environ Med. 2016;73: 727–734. pmid:27466616
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] PubMed/NCBI

[60] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Mansfield M, Thacker M, Sandford F. Psychosocial Risk Factors and the Association With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review. Hand (N Y). 2018;13: 501–508. pmid:29078710
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Roquelaure Y. Promoting a Shared Representation of Workers’ Activities to Improve Integrated Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders. Saf Health Work. 2016;7: 171–174. pmid:27340607
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Nguyen T-H-Y, Bertin M, Bodin J, Fouquet N, Bonvallot N, Roquelaure Y. Multiple Exposures and Coexposures to Occupational Hazards Among Agricultural Workers: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies. Safety and Health at Work. 2018; 9(3): 239–248. pmid:30370155
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Vela MM, Laborda R, García AM. Neurotóxicos en el ambiente laboral: criterios de clasificación y listado provisional. Arch Prev Riesgos Labor 2003; 6(1):17–25.
View Article
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Simonsen L, Johnsen H, Lund SP, Matikainen E, Midtgård U, Wennberg A. Methodological approach to the evaluation of neurotoxicity data and the classification of neurotoxic chemicals. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1994;20: 1–12. pmid:8016593
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Spencer PS, Schaumburg HH, Ludolph AC, editors. Experimental and clinical neurotoxicology. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.

[ref22] 22. Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. Lancet. 2006;368: 2167–2178. pmid:17174709
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] PubMed/NCBI

[84] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Bertin M, Nguyen T-H-Y, Bonvallot N, Bodin J, Roquelaure Y. Occupational co-exposure to biomechanical factors and neurotoxic chemicals in a representative sample of French employees. J Occup Health. 2019. pmid:31747116
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] PubMed/NCBI

[88] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Schmid AB, Coppieters MW. The double crush syndrome revisited—a Delphi study to reveal current expert views on mechanisms underlying dual nerve disorders. Man Ther. 2011;16: 557–562. pmid:21646036
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] PubMed/NCBI

[92] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Rota E, Morelli N. Entrapment neuropathies in diabetes mellitus. World J Diabetes. 2016;7: 342–353. pmid:27660694
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] PubMed/NCBI

[96] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Bleecker ML. Vibration perception thresholds in entrapment and toxic neuropathies. J Occup Med. 1986;28: 991–994. pmid:3772554
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] PubMed/NCBI

[100] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Calvert GM, Mueller CA, Fajen JM, Chrislip DW, Russo J, Briggle T, et al. Health effects associated with sulfuryl fluoride and methyl bromide exposure among structural fumigation workers. Am J Public Health. 1998;88: 1774–1780. pmid:9842373
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[102] View Article

[103] PubMed/NCBI

[104] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Ophir A, Karakis I, Richter ED, Abarbanel JM, Wormser U, Aschner M, et al. An uncommon pattern of polyneuropathy induced by lifetime exposures to drift containing organophosphate pesticides. Neurotoxicology. 2014;45: 338–346. pmid:25128617
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] PubMed/NCBI

[108] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Nora DB, Gomes I, Said G, Carvalho FM, Melo A. Modifications of the sympathetic skin response in workers chronically exposed to lead. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2007;40: 81–87. pmid:17225000
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] PubMed/NCBI

[112] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Estirado de Cabo E, Posada de la Paz M, de Andrés Copa P, Plaza Cano M del M, García de Aguinaga ML, Suarez Alvarez C, et al. Carpal tunnel syndrome. A new feature in the natural history of TOS? Eur J Epidemiol. 2003;18: 983–993. pmid:14598929
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] PubMed/NCBI

[116] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Weng C-H, Hu C-C, Yen T-H, Huang W-H. Association Between Environmental Particulate Matter and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2017;42: 827–836. pmid:29161700
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] PubMed/NCBI

[120] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Goldberg M, Carton M, Descatha A, Leclerc A, Roquelaure Y, Santin G, et al. CONSTANCES: a general prospective population-based cohort for occupational and environmental epidemiology: cohort profile. Occup Environ Med. 2017;74: 66–71. pmid:27884936
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[122] View Article

[123] PubMed/NCBI

[124] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Bush K, Kivlahan DR, McDonell MB, Fihn SD, Bradley KA, for the Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP). The audit alcohol consumption questions (audit-c): An effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158: 1789–1795. pmid:9738608
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[126] View Article

[127] PubMed/NCBI

[128] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Siegrist J, Wahrendorf M, Goldberg M, Zins M, Hoven H. Is effort-reward imbalance at work associated with different domains of health functioning? Baseline results from the French CONSTANCES study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2019;92: 467–480. pmid:30406331
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] PubMed/NCBI

[132] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Sluiter JK, Rest KM, Frings-Dresen MH. Criteria document for evaluating the work-relatedness of upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2001;27 Suppl 1: 1–102.
View Article
Google Scholar

[134] View Article

[135] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. LoPachin RM, Gavin T. Toxic Neuropathies: Mechanistic Insights Based On A Chemical Perspective. Neurosci Lett. 2015;596: 78–83. pmid:25218479
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] PubMed/NCBI

[139] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Richardson JR, Fitsanakis V, Westerink RHS, Kanthasamy AG. Neurotoxicity of pesticides. Acta Neuropathol. 2019;138: 343–362. pmid:31197504
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] PubMed/NCBI

[143] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Silverstein B, Fan ZJ, Smith CK, Bao S, Howard N, Spielholz P, et al. Gender adjustment or stratification in discerning upper extremity musculoskeletal disorder risk? Scand J Work Environ Health. 2009;35: 113–126. pmid:19294319
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Petit A, Ha C, Bodin J, Rigouin P, Descatha A, Brunet R, et al. Risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome related to the work organization: A prospective surveillance study in a large working population. Applied Ergonomics. 2015;47: 1–10. pmid:25479968
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Mondelli M, Giannini F, Giacchi M. Carpal tunnel syndrome incidence in a general population. Neurology. 2002;58: 289–294. pmid:11805259
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Bland J, Rudolfer S. Clinical surveillance of carpal tunnel syndrome in two areas of the United Kingdom, 1991–2001. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003;74: 1674–1679. pmid:14638888
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. da Costa BR, Vieira ER. Risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review of recent longitudinal studies. Am J Ind Med. 2010;53: 285–323. pmid:19753591
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] PubMed/NCBI

[163] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Dale AM, Harris-Adamson C, Rempel D, Gerr F, Hegmann K, Silverstein B, et al. Prevalence and incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome in US working populations: pooled analysis of six prospective studies. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2013;39: 495–505. pmid:23423472
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] PubMed/NCBI

[167] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Violante FS, Farioli A, Graziosi F, Marinelli F, Curti S, Armstrong TJ, et al. Carpal tunnel syndrome and manual work: the OCTOPUS cohort, results of a ten-year longitudinal study. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2016;42: 280–290. pmid:27159901
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[169] View Article

[170] PubMed/NCBI

[171] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Bland JDP. The relationship of obesity, age, and carpal tunnel syndrome: more complex than was thought? Muscle Nerve. 2005;32: 527–532. pmid:16025527
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[173] View Article

[174] PubMed/NCBI

[175] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Pourmemari M-H, Viikari-Juntura E, Shiri R. Smoking and carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis. Muscle Nerve. 2014;49: 345–350. pmid:23761223
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[177] View Article

[178] PubMed/NCBI

[179] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Viikari-Juntura E, Silverstein B. Role of physical load factors in carpal tunnel syndrome. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1999;25: 163–185. pmid:10450768
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[181] View Article

[182] PubMed/NCBI

[183] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Koch P, Schablon A, Latza U, Nienhaus A. Musculoskeletal pain and effort-reward imbalance—a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2014;14: 37. pmid:24428955
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[185] View Article

[186] PubMed/NCBI

[187] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Park SK, Kong KA, Cha ES, Lee YJ, Lee GT, Lee WJ. Occupational exposure to pesticides and nerve conduction studies among Korean farmers. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2012;67: 78–83. pmid:22524647
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[189] View Article

[190] PubMed/NCBI

[191] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Nordstrom DL, Vierkant RA, DeStefano F, Layde PM. Risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome in a general population. Occup Environ Med. 1997;54: 734–740. pmid:9404321
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[193] View Article

[194] PubMed/NCBI

[195] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Horinouchi S, Deguchi T, Arimura K, Arimura A, Dochi Y, Uto T, et al. Median neuropathy at the wrist as an early manifestation of diabetic neuropathy. J Diabetes Investig. 2014;5: 709–713. pmid:25422772
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[197] View Article

[198] PubMed/NCBI

[199] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. van Valen E, Wekking E, van der Laan G, Sprangers M, van Dijk F. The course of chronic solvent induced encephalopathy: a systematic review. Neurotoxicology. 2009;30: 1172–1186. pmid:19538991
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[201] View Article

[202] PubMed/NCBI

[203] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Kim E-A, Kang S-K. Occupational neurological disorders in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2010;25: S26–35. pmid:21258587
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[205] View Article

[206] PubMed/NCBI

[207] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Rothman KJ, Gallacher JEJ, Hatch EE. Why representativeness should be avoided. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42: 1012–1014. pmid:24062287
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[209] View Article

[210] PubMed/NCBI

[211] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Methods

Study population

Data

Risk factors at baseline

Personal and medical risk factors.

Work-related psychosocial factor.

Work-related biomechanical stressors.

Work-related exposure to chemicals.

Outcome at follow-up

Statistical analyses

Results

Participant characteristics

Risk models for CTS

Discussion

Results

Strengths and limitations of the study.

Conclusion.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Study population flowchart.

S1 File. Extract from the inclusion and follow-up questionnaires.

S1 Table. Distribution of the occupational category and personal, and potential work-related risk factors according the co-exposure groups in men (N = 8,733) and women (N = 9,285).

S2 Table. Univariate and multivariate risk models for CTS in male (N = 1,574) low grade white collar and blue-collar workers.

S3 Table. Univariate and multivariate risk models for CTS in female (N = 2,280) low grade white collar and blue-collar workers.

Acknowledgments

References