Stroke is characterized by hemiplegia, including motor deficits and various neurological manifestations mainly in contralateral half of the body lasting more than 24 hours with a presumed vascular cause. The goal of stroke rehabilitation is to make people independent and this is possible with appropriate functioning of the affected hand and upper extremity. Stroke patients have to depend on the nondominant hand when the effected hand is the dominant side. However this disadvantage might end up in better results with more effort for recovery of the dominant hand. In this study, we aimed to understand the effect of hand dominance on both functional loss and regain after stroke. 18 patients with right or left hemiplegia participated in the study. Patients were grouped as dominant side and nondominant side hemiplegic (groups D and ND). Patients were evaluated in the 1st week, 1st month and 3rd month. Brunnstrom stages, Motricity index, MAS and FIM, NHPT and hand grip strength were recorded for every patient in every visit. None of the parameters showed significant difference between two groups. Only NHPT used to assess fine manual dexterity revealed a significant difference in the final analysis. Correlation analysis displayed a positive correlation between hand grip strength with FIM and pinch grip strength with NHPT. We concluded that there was no significant difference in functional improvement between dominant and non-dominant side hemiplegic groups during the first three months after stroke. However longer follow ups and larger patient groups are needed to clarify the effect of hand dominance on long term functional status.
| Published in | Science Journal of Clinical Medicine (Volume 6, Issue 3) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.sjcm.20170603.12 |
| Page(s) | 39-45 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2017. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Stroke, Hemiplegia, Dominant Hand, Grip Strength, NHPT, Dexterity, Hand Dominance
| [1] | B. S., “Motor testing procedures in hemiplegia: based on sequential recovery stages.,” Phys Ther, no. 46, pp. 357–75, 1966. |
| [2] | M. Wiesendanger and D. J. Serrien, “Neurological problems affecting hand dexterity.,” Brain Res. Brain Res. Rev., vol. 36, no. 2–3, pp. 161–8, Oct. 2001. |
| [3] | M. N. McDonnell, S. L. Hillier, M. C. Ridding, and T. S. Miles, “Impairments in precision grip correlate with functional measures in adult hemiplegia.,” Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 117, no. 7, pp. 1474–80, Jul. 2006. |
| [4] | H. U. Nam, J. S. Huh, J. N. Yoo, and J. M. Hwang, “Effect of Dominant Hand Paralysis on Quality of Life in Patients With Subacute Stroke,” vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 450–457, 2014. |
| [5] | T. Kaya, A. Goksel Karatepe, R. Gunaydin, A. Koc, and U. Altundal Ercan, “Inter-rater reliability of the Modified Ashworth Scale and modified Modified Ashworth Scale in assessing poststroke elbow flexor spasticity,” Int. J. Rehabil. Res., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 59–64, Mar. 2011. |
| [6] | R. W. Bohannon, a. W. Andrews, and M. B. Smith, “Rehabilitation goals of patients with hemiplegia,” Int. J. Rehabil. Res., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 181–184, Jun. 1988. |
| [7] | M. Blackburn, P. van Vliet, and S. P. Mockett, “Reliability of measurements obtained with the modified Ashworth scale in the lower extremities of people with stroke.,” Phys. Ther., vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 25–34, 2002. |
| [8] | J. J. E. Jocelyn E Harris, “Individuals with the dominant hand affected following stroke demonstrate less impairment than those with the non-dominant hand affected,” Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 380–389, 2006. |
| [9] | B. Chung, “Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in the Treatment of Previously Untreated Lateral Epicondylitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Am. J. Sports Med., vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 1660–1667, Oct. 2004. |
| [10] | Z. Zhang, Q. Fang, and X. Gu, “Objective Assessment of Upper Limb Mobility for Post-stroke Rehabilitation,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 9294, no. c, pp. 1–1, 2015. |
| [11] | V. Mathiowetz, K. Weber, N. Kashman, and G. Volland, “Adult norms for the Nine Hole Peg Test of finger dexterity.,” Occup. Ther. J. Res., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 24–38, 1985. |
| [12] | G. Information and P. Instructions, “Nine Hole Peg Test Instructions General Information :,” pp. 1–3, 1985. |
| [13] | K. O. Grice, K. a. Vogel, V. Le, A. Mitchell, S. Muniz, and M. A. Vollmer, “Adult norms for a commercially available nine hole peg test for finger dexterity,” Am. J. Occup. Ther., vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 570–573, 2003. |
| [14] | I. Safaz, B. Yilmaz, E. Yaşar, and R. Alaca, “Brunnstrom recovery stage and motricity index for the evaluation of upper extremity in stroke: analysis for correlation and responsiveness.,” Int. J. Rehabil. Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 228–31, Sep. 2009. |
| [15] | F. M. Collen, D. T. Wade, and C. M. Bradshaw, “Mobility after stroke: reliability of measures of impairment and disability.,” Int. Disabil. Stud., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 6–9. |
| [16] | C. Collin and D. Wade, “Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study.,” J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 576–9, Jul. 1990. |
| [17] | R. W. Bohannon, J. Bear-Lehman, J. Desrosiers, N. Massy-Westropp, and V. Mathiowetz, “Average grip strength: a meta-analysis of data obtained with a Jamar dynamometer from individuals 75 years or more of age.,” J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 28–30, Jan. 2007. |
| [18] | V. Mathiowetz, C. Rennells, and L. Donahoe, “Effect of elbow position on grip and key pinch strength.,” J. Hand Surg. Am., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 694–697, 1985. |
| [19] | J. Sengler, E. Hartmann, P. Buisson, C. Pierrejean, and D. Bourderont, “Is functional independence measure (FIM) predictive for stroke rehabilitation?,” Ann. Readapt. Med. Phys., vol. 39, pp. 553–559, 1996. |
| [20] | C. Glenny, P. Stolee, M. Thompson, J. Husted, and K. Berg, “Underestimating physical function gains: comparing FIM motor subscale and interRAI post acute care activities of daily living scale.,” Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., vol. 93, no. 6, pp. 1000–8, 2012. |
| [21] | H. Arai, Y. Ouchi, M. Yokode, H. Ito, H. Uematsu, F. Eto, S. Oshima, K. Ota, Y. Saito, H. Sasaki, K. Tsubota, H. Fukuyama, Y. Honda, A. Iguchi, K. Toba, T. Hosoi, and T. Kita, “Toward the realization of a better aged society: messages from gerontology and geriatrics.,” Geriatr. Gerontol. Int., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 16–22, Jan. 2012. |
| [22] | M. Inouye, K. Kishi, Y. Ikeda, M. Takada, J. Katoh, M. Iwahashi, M. Hayakawa, K. Ishihara, S. Sawamura, and T. Kazumi, “Prediction of functional outcome after stroke rehabilitation.,” Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil., vol. 79, no. 6, pp. 513–8, 2000. |
| [23] | R. J. M. Lemmens, A. a a Timmermans, Y. J. M. Janssen-Potten, R. J. E. M. Smeets, and H. a M. Seelen, “Valid and reliable instruments for arm-hand assessment at ICF activity level in persons with hemiplegia: a systematic review.,” BMC Neurol., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 21, Jan. 2012. |
| [24] | C. E. Lang, M. D. Bland, R. R. Bailey, S. Y. Schaefer, and R. L. Birkenmeier, “Assessment of upper extremity impairment, function, and activity after stroke: foundations for clinical decision making.,” J. Hand Ther., vol. 26, no. 2, p. 104–14; quiz 115, 2013. |
| [25] | S.-L. Huang, C.-L. Hsieh, J.-H. Lin, and H.-M. Chen, “Optimal scoring methods of hand-strength tests in patients with stroke.,” Int. J. Rehabil. Res., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 178–80, Jun. 2011. |
| [26] | H.-M. Chen, C. C. Chen, I.-P. Hsueh, S.-L. Huang, and C.-L. Hsieh, “Test-retest reproducibility and smallest real difference of 5 hand function tests in patients with stroke.,” Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 435–40, Jun. 2009. |
| [27] | A. Sunderland, D. Tinson, L. Bradley, and R. L. Hewer, “Arm function after stroke. An evaluation of grip strength as a measure of recovery and a prognostic indicator.,” J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 1267–72, Nov. 1989. |
| [28] | E. Svensson, K. Waling, and C. Häger-Ross, “Grip strength in children: test-retest reliability using Grippit.,” Acta Paediatr., vol. 97, no. 9, pp. 1226–31, Sep. 2008. |
| [29] | S. Li, M. L. Latash, G. H. Yue, V. Siemionow, and V. Sahgal, “The effects of stroke and age on finger interaction in multi-finger force production tasks,” Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 114, no. 9, pp. 1646–1655, Sep. 2003. |
| [30] | A. Sunderland, D. Tinson, L. Bradley, and R. L. Hewer, “Arm function after stroke. An evaluation of grip strength as a measure of recovery and a prognostic indicator.,” J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 1267–1272, Nov. 1989. |
| [31] | R. W Bohannon, “Motricity Index Scores are Valid Indicators of Paretic Upper Extremity Strength Following Stroke.,” J. Phys. Ther. Sci., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 59–61, 1999. |
| [32] | J. A. Beebe and C. E. Lang, “Relationships and responsiveness of six upper extremity function tests during the first six months of recovery after stroke.,” J. Neurol. Phys. Ther., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 96–103, Jun. 2009. |
| [33] | K. A. Provins and J. Magliaro, “The measurement of handedness by preference and performance tests.,” Brain Cogn., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 171–181, 1993. |
| [34] | J. K. Rinehart, R. D. Singleton, J. C. Adair, J. R. Sadek, and K. Y. Haaland, “Arm use after left or right hemiparesis is influenced by hand preference.,” Stroke., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 545–50, Feb. 2009. |
| [35] | Y. Laufer, L. Gattenio, E. Parnas, D. Sinai, Y. Sorek, and R. Dickstein, “Time-related changes in motor performance of the upper extremity ipsilateral to the side of the lesion in stroke survivors.,” Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 167–172, 2001. |
| [36] | D. J. Serrien and M. M. Sovijärvi-Spapé, “Cognitive control of response inhibition and switching: hemispheric lateralization and hand preference.,” Brain Cogn., vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 283–90, Aug. 2013. |
APA Style
Pınar Muge Sarikaya, Nurgul Arinci Incel, Arda Yilmaz, Ozlem Bolgen Cimen, Gunsah Sahin. (2017). Effect of Hand Dominance on Functional Status and Recovery of Hand in Stroke Patients. Science Journal of Clinical Medicine, 6(3), 39-45. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjcm.20170603.12
ACS Style
Pınar Muge Sarikaya; Nurgul Arinci Incel; Arda Yilmaz; Ozlem Bolgen Cimen; Gunsah Sahin. Effect of Hand Dominance on Functional Status and Recovery of Hand in Stroke Patients. Sci. J. Clin. Med. 2017, 6(3), 39-45. doi: 10.11648/j.sjcm.20170603.12
AMA Style
Pınar Muge Sarikaya, Nurgul Arinci Incel, Arda Yilmaz, Ozlem Bolgen Cimen, Gunsah Sahin. Effect of Hand Dominance on Functional Status and Recovery of Hand in Stroke Patients. Sci J Clin Med. 2017;6(3):39-45. doi: 10.11648/j.sjcm.20170603.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.sjcm.20170603.12,
author = {Pınar Muge Sarikaya and Nurgul Arinci Incel and Arda Yilmaz and Ozlem Bolgen Cimen and Gunsah Sahin},
title = {Effect of Hand Dominance on Functional Status and Recovery of Hand in Stroke Patients},
journal = {Science Journal of Clinical Medicine},
volume = {6},
number = {3},
pages = {39-45},
doi = {10.11648/j.sjcm.20170603.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjcm.20170603.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sjcm.20170603.12},
abstract = {Stroke is characterized by hemiplegia, including motor deficits and various neurological manifestations mainly in contralateral half of the body lasting more than 24 hours with a presumed vascular cause. The goal of stroke rehabilitation is to make people independent and this is possible with appropriate functioning of the affected hand and upper extremity. Stroke patients have to depend on the nondominant hand when the effected hand is the dominant side. However this disadvantage might end up in better results with more effort for recovery of the dominant hand. In this study, we aimed to understand the effect of hand dominance on both functional loss and regain after stroke. 18 patients with right or left hemiplegia participated in the study. Patients were grouped as dominant side and nondominant side hemiplegic (groups D and ND). Patients were evaluated in the 1st week, 1st month and 3rd month. Brunnstrom stages, Motricity index, MAS and FIM, NHPT and hand grip strength were recorded for every patient in every visit. None of the parameters showed significant difference between two groups. Only NHPT used to assess fine manual dexterity revealed a significant difference in the final analysis. Correlation analysis displayed a positive correlation between hand grip strength with FIM and pinch grip strength with NHPT. We concluded that there was no significant difference in functional improvement between dominant and non-dominant side hemiplegic groups during the first three months after stroke. However longer follow ups and larger patient groups are needed to clarify the effect of hand dominance on long term functional status.},
year = {2017}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Effect of Hand Dominance on Functional Status and Recovery of Hand in Stroke Patients AU - Pınar Muge Sarikaya AU - Nurgul Arinci Incel AU - Arda Yilmaz AU - Ozlem Bolgen Cimen AU - Gunsah Sahin Y1 - 2017/07/24 PY - 2017 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjcm.20170603.12 DO - 10.11648/j.sjcm.20170603.12 T2 - Science Journal of Clinical Medicine JF - Science Journal of Clinical Medicine JO - Science Journal of Clinical Medicine SP - 39 EP - 45 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2327-2732 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjcm.20170603.12 AB - Stroke is characterized by hemiplegia, including motor deficits and various neurological manifestations mainly in contralateral half of the body lasting more than 24 hours with a presumed vascular cause. The goal of stroke rehabilitation is to make people independent and this is possible with appropriate functioning of the affected hand and upper extremity. Stroke patients have to depend on the nondominant hand when the effected hand is the dominant side. However this disadvantage might end up in better results with more effort for recovery of the dominant hand. In this study, we aimed to understand the effect of hand dominance on both functional loss and regain after stroke. 18 patients with right or left hemiplegia participated in the study. Patients were grouped as dominant side and nondominant side hemiplegic (groups D and ND). Patients were evaluated in the 1st week, 1st month and 3rd month. Brunnstrom stages, Motricity index, MAS and FIM, NHPT and hand grip strength were recorded for every patient in every visit. None of the parameters showed significant difference between two groups. Only NHPT used to assess fine manual dexterity revealed a significant difference in the final analysis. Correlation analysis displayed a positive correlation between hand grip strength with FIM and pinch grip strength with NHPT. We concluded that there was no significant difference in functional improvement between dominant and non-dominant side hemiplegic groups during the first three months after stroke. However longer follow ups and larger patient groups are needed to clarify the effect of hand dominance on long term functional status. VL - 6 IS - 3 ER -
Email: