Comparison of two electronic dynamometers for measuring handgrip strength.

INTRODUCTION: Handgrip strength (HGS) is a strong predictor and easily applicable assessment, indicating a person's physical condition and health. However, many dynamometers are available; therefore, it is essential to ensure that the results of HGS testing using different dynamometers can be used interchangeably. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the inter-instrument agreement and criterion validity of the Baseline BIMS Digital Grip Dynamometer in comparison with the Jamar electronic dynamometer (Jamar+). METHODS: Seventy participants, aged between 23-88 (five men and five women in each decade from 20 to 80+), performed three attempts with each dynamometer (30-sec break between attempts) in a randomized order and separated with a 5-minute break between dynamometers. Intraclass correlation coefficient (3.1), standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change were used for comparison of the strongest and average strength measured with dynamometers. Jamar+ and Baseline BIMS Digital Grip Dynamometer were new dynamometers and considered calibrated by the manufacturer. RESULTS: The overall Intraclass correlation coefficient was excellent (0.98). An average (SD) difference of 0.68 (2.2) kg (p = 0.04) was seen for the comparison of the strongest attempt for Baseline BIMS minus Jamar+, Correspondingly, for the average of three attempts, it was 0.37 (2.29, p = 0.2) kg. The standard error of measurement (%) and minimal detectable change (%) of the strongest attempt was 1.64 kg (4.2%) and 3.55 kg (9.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate low measurement error with high agreement and criterion validity for the comparison of Baseline BIMS Digital Grip Dynamometer and Jamar+ and that results of the two dynamometers can be used interchangeably.

Intensified acute in-hospital physiotherapy for patients after hip fracture surgery: a pragmatic, randomized, controlled feasibility trial.

PURPOSE: Intensified acute in-hospital physiotherapy (IP) after hip fracture (HF) may enhance patient's ability to regain basic mobility at discharge. The primary objective was to assess the feasibility of IP. Secondary to estimate the effect of IP on regained basic mobility at discharge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a pragmatic, randomized, unblinded feasibility trial, 60 patients (mean age 79 years, 41 women) with HF and an independent pre-fracture basic mobility level were randomized (2:1) to IP with two daily sessions on weekdays focusing on functional training and weight-bearing activities (n = 40) versus usual care (UC) physiotherapy once daily (n = 20). Feasibility outcomes included physiotherapy completion rates, reasons for non-successful completion, and adverse events. The primary effect outcome was recovery of basic mobility (Cumulated Ambulation Score (CAS)). RESULTS: Eighty-two percent of the sessions in the IP group were successfully- or partially completed versus 94% of the sessions in the UC group. No adverse events occurred. The main reason for not completing physiotherapy was fatigue. At discharge (median 7 days), 50% in the IP group had regained their pre-fracture basic mobility level (CAS = 6) versus 16% in the UC group; odds ratio = 5.33, 95%CI [1.3;21.5]. CONCLUSIONS: IP seems feasible for patients after HF surgery, and it may enhance recovery. Fatigue was the primary obstacle to completing IP.

Two daily physiotherapy sessions focusing on functional training and weight-bearing activities are feasible for patients after isolated hip fracture surgery, including subtrochanteric fracture, and may enhance recovery of basic mobility at discharge.During hospitalization, patient participation in intensified physiotherapy is mainly restricted by fatigue.Systematic assessment and management of fatigue may improve the completion of physiotherapy and recovery of basic mobility.

Effects of Heavy Slow Resistance Training Combined With Corticosteroid Injections or Tendon Needling in Patients With Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy: A 3-Arm Randomized Double-Blinded Placebo-Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Lateral elbow tendinopathy is a disabling tendon overuse injury. It remains unknown if a corticosteroid injection (CSI) or tendon needling (TN) combined with heavy slow resistance (HSR) training is superior to HSR alone in treating lateral elbow tendinopathy. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to investigate the effects of HSR combined with either (1) a CSI, (2) TN, or (3) placebo needling (PN) as treatment for lateral elbow tendinopathy. We hypothesized that 12 weeks of HSR in combination with a CSI or TN would have superior effects compared with PN at 12, 26, and 52 (primary endpoint) weeks' follow-up on primary (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH] score) and secondary outcomes in patients with chronic unilateral lateral elbow tendinopathy. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A total of 60 patients with chronic unilateral lateral elbow tendinopathy were randomized to perform 12 weeks of home-based HSR with elastic band exercises combined with either (1) a CSI, (2) TN, or (3) PN, and at 12, 26, and 52 weeks, we assessed the primary outcome, the DASH score, and secondary outcomes: shortened version of the DASH (QuickDASH) score, pain (numerical rating scale [NRS] score), pain-free grip strength, and hypervascularization (power Doppler area). RESULTS: A CSI, TN, and PN improved patient outcomes equally based on the DASH (Δ20 points), QuickDASH (Δ21 points), and NRS (Δ2.5 points) scores after 12 weeks. Further, after 12 weeks, a CSI also resulted in decreased hypervascularization (power Doppler area) compared with PN (Δ-2251 pixels, P = .0418). Except for the QuickDASH score (CSI increased score by Δ15 points compared with PN; P = .0427), there were no differences between the groups after 52 weeks. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that 12 weeks of HSR improved symptoms in both the short and the long term and that a CSI or TN did not amplify this effect. In addition, a CSI seemed to impair patient-reported outcomes compared with HSR alone at long-term follow-up. REGISTRATION: NCT02521298 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).