ObjectiveGrip strength is important for independent self-care and is a predictor of functional decline. This study aimed to determine if healthy individuals would demonstrate different hand-grip and key-pinch strengths at three different arm positions and in comparisons between dominant and non-dominant hands.MethodsA total of 61 right-hand–dominant male college students aged 19–23 years were consecutively recruited from the College of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences. Three researchers performed the measurements. All tests were performed with the JAMAR® hand-grip dynamometer handle set in its second position. Participants were instructed to squeeze the handle of the hand-grip dynamometer in the 90° elbow flexion, 90° shoulder flexion, and arm dangled positions. For assessment of key-pinch strength, every participant had to squeeze the thumb pad against the lateral aspect of the middle phalanx of the index finger. Key-pinch strength was measured in the same positions used for assessment of hand-grip strength. Participants were blinded for the outcome measurements. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.ResultsThe hand-grip and key-pinch strengths did not show significant effects. Comparison of right and left hand-grip strengths also showed insignificant differences. However, the key-pinch strength showed a significant increase in favour of the dominant hand.ConclusionsClinicians can choose any upper-extremity position to measure hand-grip and key-pinch strength. Furthermore, clinicians should aim to maintain and restore almost equal scores for hand-grip and pinch strength of the dominant and non-dominant hands to ensure better hand function.

No abstract

[Purpose] To explore the relationship between functional outcome measurements of spinal mobility, static balance and functional performance. [Participants and Methods] Fifty two healthy participants aged between 18–36 years participated. Spinal mobility included forward bending and side bending. Balance was tested via maintaining single-leg stance position with eyes open and with eyes closed. Functional testing included five times squat to stand, walking on heels and walking on tiptoes. [Results] Two-way mixed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) consistency model average measure (ICC3,K) for single-leg standing with the eyes are open and closed was excellent (0.85) and very good (0.79) respectively. Mean forward spinal mobility score of the recreationally active group (M= 3.3 ± 5.7) was significantly lower (M= 9.5 ± 10.5) than inactive group. Regarding five times squat to stand, the mean score of the recreationally active group (10.4 ± 4.3) was not significantly different from the mean of the recreationally inactive group (9.5 ± 2.6). [Conclusion] Walking on heels significantly took more time and perceived with more exertion than tiptoes walking. Also, standing on one leg was harder when eyes are closed. Recreationally active had shown significant forward mobility but no difference between sidebending mobility. The relationships between different outcome measures need to be furtherly explored.

No abstract

To compare flexion and extension peak torque of patients with nonspecific-chronic low back pain who were classified as directional preference subgroups, and their matched healthy controls. [Participants and Methods] Fifty male volunteers (25 with non-specific chronic low back pain and 25 healthy-matched controls) consented to participate. The investigator collected all demographic data, hips, knees and spinal mobility in addition to the peak torque using the Biodex isokinetic dynamometer. The measurement protocol consisted of 2 sets of 10 consecutive flexion-extension efforts performed at 120°/sec and 60°/sec angular velocity. A two minutes rest period was given between sets. The preset 50° range of motion included 20°(+20°) of trunk extension and 30°(−30°) of trunk flexion. [Results] A 2 × 2 mixed-design ANOVA showed a significant group X isokinetic velocity interaction. The main effect of isokinetic velocity was also significant. In reference to the peak torque of the flexors of the trunk, the main effect of group was significant. [Conclusion] The extension peak torque significantly depends on the velocity of the isokinetic dynamometer; however the flexion peak torque significantly depends on the participants' group attribution.