Assessment of Hand Functions in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B

Abstract

Objective: Motor dysfunction is an important clinical finding in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC), but there is no study assessing fine motor coordination in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We aimed to investigate hand functions and fingertip dexterity in patients with CHB. Materials and Methods: A total of 17 female and 15 male patients diagnosed with CHB without histopathological findings of cirrhosis were enrolled to the study; 21 female and 9 male healthy volunteers were included as a control group. Hand grip strength was assessed by Jamar hand dynamometer. Three kinds of pinch strength of fingers were assessed by Jamar pinchmeter. Functional status was evaluated by using the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Duruoz Hand Index (DHI) was used to assess the hand functions. Fingertip dexterity was evaluated by Purdue pegboard test. Results: Bilateral hand grip strength and pinch strength were not statistically different from controls (p>0.05). There was also no significant difference between the categories of the Purdue pegboard test between the groups. HAQ scores of patients were higher than controls (p<0.05). Conclusion: Hand functions are not influenced in patients with CHB. Disruptions in the functional status of patients with CHB may be due to fatigue and depression, which are usually seen in chronic liver diseases.

Evaluation of muscle strength and quality in North African patients with chronic hepatitis B: A pilot case control study

“…HGS evaluates the nutritional status and the menace of falling [ 24 , 28 ]; is associated with the muscle mass [ 23 , 25 ]; is an indicator of walking speed and sarcopenia [ 23 , 26 ]; and is associated with the quality of life [ 27 ]. Even though HGS was largely evaluated in patients with chronic liver diseases, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, only two previous studies explored the HGS in non-cirrhotic CHB (NC-CHB) patients compared to healthy participants [ 28 , 29 ]. The first study reported that the healthy participants ( n = 30) and the patients with CHB ( n = 32) had comparable values of HGS in both dominant and non-dominant hands [ 29 ].…”

“…Even though HGS was largely evaluated in patients with chronic liver diseases, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, only two previous studies explored the HGS in non-cirrhotic CHB (NC-CHB) patients compared to healthy participants [ 28 , 29 ]. The first study reported that the healthy participants ( n = 30) and the patients with CHB ( n = 32) had comparable values of HGS in both dominant and non-dominant hands [ 29 ]. The second study noted that healthy participants ( n = 159) and patients with chronic hepatitis ( n = 189) including some patients with CHB ( n = 80) had comparable values of HGS in the non-dominant hand [ 28 ].…”

“…The second study noted that healthy participants ( n = 159) and patients with chronic hepatitis ( n = 189) including some patients with CHB ( n = 80) had comparable values of HGS in the non-dominant hand [ 28 ]. The results of the aforementioned two studies [ 28 , 29 ] are questionable for some reasons making the comparison between studies difficult. The main reasons were related to the i) Expression modes of the HGS like absolute values (i.e.…”

“…The main reasons were related to the i) Expression modes of the HGS like absolute values (i.e. ; HGS A ) with no standardization considering some body mass markers [ 28 , 29 ]; ii) Retained HGS’ values for statistical analysis such as average of three HGS values for each hand [ 29 ] vs. the non-dominant hand’s highest value among three values [ 28 ], and iii) Choice of the ‘statistical’ significance approach (i.e. ; a ‘p-value’ <0.05 being considered significant) rather than the ‘clinical’ significance approach [ 30 ] like comparing the percentage of participants having abnormal HGS values between the two groups [ 31 ].…”

“…The null hypothesis was that the two groups have comparable HGS whatever its mode of expression [i.e. ; HGS A or relative HGS (rHGS)] [ 28 , 29 ]. Both ‘statistical’ and ‘clinical’ significant approaches will be applied.…”