Grip strength measurements at two different wrist extension positions in chronic lateral epicondylitis-comparison of involved vs. uninvolved side in athletes and non athletes: a case-control study

Abstract Background Lateral epicondylitis is a common sports injury of the elbow caused due to altered muscle activation during repetitive wrist extension in many athletic and non-athletic endeavours. The amount of muscle activity and timing of contraction eventually is directly dependent upon joint position during the activity. The purpose of our study was to compare the grip strength in athletes with lateral epicondylalgia in two different wrist extension positions and compare them between involved and uninvolved sides of athletes and non-athletes. Methods An assessor-blinded case-control study of eight athletes and twenty-two non-athletes was done. The grip strength was measured using JAMAR® hand dynamometer in kilograms-force at 15 degrees (slightly extended) and 35 degrees (moderately extended) wrist extension positions (maintained by wrist splints) on both involved and uninvolved sides of athletes and non-athletes with unilateral lateral epicondylitis of atleast 3 months duration. Their pain was to be elicited with local tenderness and two of three tests being positive- Cozen's, Mill's manoeuvre, resisted middle finger extension tests. For comparisons of grip strength, Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for within-group comparison (between 15 and 35 degrees wrist extension positions) and Mann-Whitney U test was used for between-group (athletes vs. non-athletes) comparisons at 95% confidence interval and were done using SPSS 11.5 for Windows. Results Statistically significant greater grip strength was found in 15 degrees (27.75 ± 4.2 kgms in athletes; 16.45 ± 4.2 kgms in non-athletes) wrist extension than at 35 degrees (25.25 ± 3.53 kgm in athletes and 14.18 ± 3.53 kgm in non-athletes). The athletes had greater grip strength than non-athletes in each of test positions (11.3 kgm at 15 degrees and 11.07 kgm at 35 degrees) measured. There was also a significant difference between involved and uninvolved sides' grip strength at both wrist positions (4.44 ± .95 kgm at 15 degrees and 4.44 ± .86 kgm in 35 degrees) which was significant (p Conclusion The grip strength was greater in 15 degrees wrist extension position and this position could then be used in athletes with lateral epicondylalgia for grip strength assessment and designing wrist splint in this population.</p

Força de preensão manual de atletas tenistas avaliada por diferentes recomendações de teste

A avaliação da força de preensão manual (FPM) em tenistas competitivos deve ser realizada devido à assimetria que o jogador pode desenvolver. Para avaliar a FPM, profissionais utilizam dois protocolos diferentes (das Sociedades Americana e Europeia). Os objetivos deste estudo foram comparar a FPM usando a técnica do European Test of Physical Fitness Handbook (Eurofit) e da American Society of Hand Therapists (ASHT), bem como verificar a FPM entre o lado dominante/contralateral e comparar a FPM entre as idades em atletas de tênis da categoria infanto-juvenil. Participaram do estudo 137 tenistas do gênero masculino e 45 do feminino, todos com idade entre oito e 18 anos. Para avaliar a FPM, segundo as recomendações da Eurofit e ASHT, foi utilizado um dinamômetro manual (Jamar). Nenhum dos sujeitos avaliados apresentava qualquer lesão que pudesse comprometer o teste. Os resultados mostram que não há diferença na FPM entre os posicionamentos recomendados pela Eurofit e ASHT para medir a FPM independente do gênero. A curva sigmoide foi a que melhor se adequou para regressão da FPM e idade em ambos os gêneros sendo que para o masculino a FPM tem maior inclinação aos 11 anos, já para o feminino a maior inclinação é aos 10 anos. Além disso, a partir dos 14 anos, o lado dominante dos atletas masculinos apresentou maior FPM que o lado não dominante; contudo, essa assimetria não ocorreu no feminino em qualquer idade até os 18 anos

Construct validity of functional capacity tests in healthy workers

<p>Background: Functional Capacity (FC) is a multidimensional construct within the activity domain of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework (ICF). Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are assessments of work-related FC. The extent to which these work-related FC tests are associated to bio-, psycho-, or social factors is unknown. The aims of this study were to test relationships between FC tests and other ICF factors in a sample of healthy workers, and to determine the amount of statistical variance in FC tests that can be explained by these factors.</p><p>Methods: A cross sectional study. The sample was comprised of 403 healthy workers who completed material handling FC tests (lifting low, overhead lifting, and carrying) and static work FC tests (overhead working and standing forward bend). The explainable variables were; six muscle strength tests; aerobic capacity test; and questionnaires regarding personal factors (age, gender, body height, body weight, and education), psychological factors (mental health, vitality, and general health perceptions), and social factors (perception of work, physical workloads, sport-, leisure time-, and work-index). A priori construct validity hypotheses were formulated and analyzed by means of correlation coefficients and regression analyses.</p><p>Results: Moderate correlations were detected between material handling FC tests and muscle strength, gender, body weight, and body height. As for static work FC tests; overhead working correlated fair with aerobic capacity and handgrip strength, and low with the sport-index and perception of work. For standing forward bend FC test, all hypotheses were rejected. The regression model revealed that 61% to 62% of material handling FC tests were explained by physical factors. Five to 15% of static work FC tests were explained by physical and social factors.</p><p>Conclusions: The current study revealed that, in a sample of healthy workers, material handling FC tests were related to physical factors but not to the psychosocial factors measured in this study. The construct of static work FC tests remained largely unexplained.</p>