Investigating the functional grip strength of elderly fallers in Singapore

Abstract

Background: Static grip strength has been a reliable method for assessing the functional capacity of the individual and can be a useful marker for identifying elderly people at risk of functional deterioration leading to a fall. However, static grip strength alone may not represent the true maximum strength that an individual could exert in his/her daily life, especially if the task requires simultaneous forces from gripping and a forearm twisting action, which is termed as functional isometric grip strength. Hence, the objectives of this study were to determine the differences in the fallers’ grip strengths at static-neutral grip position and during isometric forearm pronation/supination, as well as the differences between the maximum and sustained isometric grip strengths. Methods: Data were analysed from 31 elderly people (11 males and 20 females) aged 70 and over. Using a custom-made hand strength measurement device, three measurements were taken: (1) grip strength in neutral forearm position; (2) grip strength during isometric forearm pronation; and (3) grip strength during isometric forearm supination. Results: Elderly fallers could only achieve approximately 60%–80% of the maximum normative strength. Additionally, it was found that their functional isometric grip strengths were generally weaker than their static maximal grip strength, especially during isometric supination as either maximum or sustained isometric supination grip strengths (Dominant hand: 10.6 kg and 8.5 kg, respectively (males); 6.0 kg and 4.4 kg, respectively (females)). Conclusion: Elderly fallers are weaker when their grip is subjected to additional torque, endurance or both. Hence, these findings have potential implications for designing better screening tools for the geriatric population.

Normative Static Grip Strength of Saudi Arabia’s Population and Influences of Numerous Factors on Grip Strength

“…The post hoc analysis shows that the (60-70) age group is the only group significantly weaker than (18-29), (30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39), (40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49), and (50-59) age groups. Additionally, the age group of (30-39) is the strongest followed by (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29) then (40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49), as shown in Figure 4, but there were no significant differences between the (18-29), (30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)…”

“…Many studies provided normative references in different countries. These include the USA [ 16 ], the UK [ 17 ], Spain [ 18 ], Germany [ 19 ], Australia [ 20 ], Korea [ 21 ], Canada [ 22 ], Japan [ 23 ], Singapore [ 24 ], and Taiwan [ 25 ].…”