No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background and Purpose. There is limited documentation of measurement error of grip and pinch force evaluation methods. The purposes of this study were (1) to determine indexes of measurement error for intraexaminer and interexaminer measurements of grip and pinch force in patients with hand injuries and (2) to investigate whether the measurement error differs between measurements of the injured and noninjured hands and between experienced and inexperienced examiners. Subjects. The subjects were a consecutive sample of 33 patients with hand injuries who were seen in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of Erasmus MC–University Medical Center Rotterdam in the Netherlands. Methods. Repeated measurements were taken of grip and pinch force, with a short break of 2 to 3 minutes between sessions. For the grip force in 2 handle positions (distance between handles of 4.6 and 7.2 cm, respectively), tip pinch (with the index finger on top and the thumb below, with the other fingers flexed) and key pinch force (with the thumb on top and the radial side of the index finger below) data were obtained on both hands of the subjects by an experienced examiner and an inexperienced examiner. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard errors of measurement (SEMs), and associated smallest detectable differences (SDDs) were calculated and compared with data from previous studies. Results. The reliability of the measurements was expressed by ICCs between .82 and .97. For grip force measurements (in the second handle position) by the experienced examiner, an SDD of 61 N was found. For tip pinch and key pinch, these values were 12 N and 11 N, respectively. For measurements by the inexperienced examiner, SDDs of 56 N for grip force and 13 N and 18 N for tip pinch and key pinch were found. Discussion and Conclusion. Based on the SEMs and SDDs, in individual patients only relatively large differences in grip and pinch force measurements can be adequately detected between consecutive measurements. Measurement error did not differ between injured and noninjured hands or between experienced and inexperienced examiners. Criteria for judging whether the measurement error does allow application of the measurements in individual patients are discussed.

This study demonstrated that spaghetti wrist injury can be placed among the severe disabling injuries. Comparison of the two definitions did not reveal any differences in outcome. To complete the evaluation of long-term outcome, a patient-derived assessment of function can be added to the clinical examination, and attention should be paid to psychological distress following the injury.

While manual muscle strength testing and grip strength measurements show a reasonable to good recovery, measurements of the intrinsic muscles by means of the RIHM showed poor recovery of intrinsic muscle strength after peripheral nerve injury. No correlation was found between the recovery of intrinsic muscle strength and grip strength measurements.

No abstract

We assessed the use of guided plasticity training to improve the outcome in the first 6 months after nerve repair. In a multicentre randomized controlled trial, 37 adults with median or ulnar nerve repair at the distal forearm were randomized to intervention, starting the first week after surgery with sensory and motor re-learning using mirror visual feedback and observation of touch, or to a control group with re-learning starting when reinnervation could be detected. The primary outcome at 3 and 6 months post-operatively was discriminative touch (shape texture identification test, part of the Rosen score). At 6 months, discriminative touch was significantly better in the early intervention group. Improvement of discriminative touch between 3 and 6 months was also significantly greater in that group. There were no significant differences in motor function, pain or in the total score. We conclude that early re-learning using guided plasticity may have a potential to improve the outcomes after nerve repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II.