Força de preensão – Análise de concordância entre dois dinamómetros: JAMAR vs E‑Link

Introdução – Avaliar a força de preensão mostrou ser de primordial importância pela sua relação com a capacidade funcional dos indivíduos, permitindo determinar níveis de risco para incapacidade futura e, assim, estabelecer estratégias de prevenção. Grande parte dos estudos utiliza o dinamómetro hidráulico JAMAR que fornece o valor da força isométrica obtida durante a execução do movimento de preensão palmar. Contudo, existem outros dinamómetros disponíveis, como é o caso do dinamómetro portátil computorizado E‑Link (Biometrics) que fornece o valor da força máxima (peak force), para além de outras variáveis, como a taxa de fadiga. Não existem, contudo, estudos que nos permitam aceitar e comparar ou não os valores obtidos com os dois equipamentos e porventura utilizá‑los indistintamente. Objetivos – Avaliar a concordância entre as medições da força de preensão (força máxima ou peak force em Kg) obtida a partir de dois equipamentos diferentes (dinamómetros portáteis): um computorizado (E‑Link, Biometrics) e outro hidráulico (JAMAR). Metodologia – Foram avaliados 29 indivíduos (13H; 16M; 22±7 anos; 23,2±3,3 kg/m2) em 2 dias consecutivos, na mesma altura do dia. A posição de teste escolhida foi a recomendada pela Associação Americana de Terapeutas Ocupacionais e foi escolhido o melhor resultado de entre 3 tentativas para a mão dominante. Realizou‑se uma análise correlacional entre os valores obtidos na variável analisada em cada equipamento (coeficiente de Spearman) e uma análise de Bland & Altman para verificar a concordância entre as duas medições. Resultados – O coeficiente de correlação entre as duas medições foi elevado (rS= 0,956; p<0,001) e, pela análise de Bland & Altman, os valores obtidos encontram‑se todos dentro do intervalo da média±2SD. Conclusões – As duas medições mostraram ser concordantes, revelando que os dinamómetros testados podem ser comparáveis ou utilizados indistintamente em diferentes estudos e populações. ABSTRACT: Introduction – Assess grip strength has proved to be of vital importance because of its relationship with functional capacity of individuals, in order to determine levels of risk for future disability and thereby establish prevention strategies. Most studies use the JAMAR Hydraulic dynamometer that provides the value of isometric force obtained during the performance of grip movement. However, there are other dynamometers available, such as portable computerized dynamometer E‑Link (Biometrics), which provides the value of maximum force (peak force) in addition to other variables as the rate of fatigue. There are no studies that allow us to accept or not and compare values obtained with both devices and perhaps use them interchangeably. Purpose – To evaluate the agreement between the measurements of grip strength (peak force or maximum force in kg) obtained from two different devices (portable dynamometers): a computerized (E‑Link, Biometrics) and a hydraulic (JAMAR). Methodology – 29 subjects (13H, 16M, 22 ± 7 years, 23.2 ± 3.3 kg/m2) were assessed on two consecutive days at the same time of day. The test position chosen was recommended by the American Association of Occupational Therapists and was considered the best result from three attempts for the dominant hand. A correlation was studied between values obtained in the variable analyzed in each equipment (Spearman coefficient) and Bland‑Altman analysis to assess the agreement between the two measurements. Results – The correlation coefficient between the two measurements was high (rs = 0,956, p <0,001) and Bland & Altman analysis of the values obtained are all within the range of mean±2SD. Conclusions – The two measurements were shown to be concordant, revealing that the tested dynamometers can be comparable or used interchangeably in different studies and populations.

An experimental study to compare the interface pressure and experience of healthy participants when lying still for 20 minutes in a supine position on two different imaging surfaces

Introduction: Pressure ulcers are a high cost, high volume issue for health and medical care providers, affecting patients’ recovery and psychological wellbeing. The current research of support surfaces on pressure as a risk factor in the development of pressure ulcers is not relevant to the specialised, controlled environment of the radiological setting. Method: 38 healthy participants aged 19-51 were placed supine on two different imaging surfaces. The XSENSOR pressure mapping system was used to measure the interface pressure. Data was acquired over a time of 20 minutes preceded by 6 minutes settling time to reduce measurement error. Qualitative information regarding participants’ opinion on pain and comfort was recorded using a questionnaire. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 22. Results: Data was collected from 30 participants aged 19 to 51 (mean 25.77, SD 7.72), BMI from 18.7 to 33.6 (mean 24.12, SD 3.29), for two surfaces, following eight participant exclusions due to technical faults. Total average pressure, average pressure for jeopardy areas (head, sacrum & heels) and peak pressure for jeopardy areas were calculated as interface pressure in mmHg. Qualitative data showed that a significant difference in experiences of comfort and pain was found in the jeopardy areas (P<0.05) between the two surfaces. Conclusion: A significant difference is seen in average pressure between the two surfaces. Pain and comfort data also show a significant difference between the surfaces, both findings support the proposal for further investigation into the effects of radiological surfaces as a risk factor for the formation of pressure ulcers.