ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Background: Grip strength, commonly evaluated with the handgrip dynamometer, is a good indicator of upper limb (UL) function in stroke subjects and may reflect the global strength deficits of the whole paretic UL. The Modified Sphygmomanometer Test (MST) also provides objective and adequate measures at low-cost. Objective: To assess whether grip strength values obtained by using the MST and those obtained by using a handgrip dynamometer would present similar correlations with the global strength and motor function of the paretic UL in subjects with stroke, both in the subacute and chronic phases. Method: Measures of grip strength (MST and handgrip dynamometer), UL global strength (MST and hand-held dynamometer), and UL motor function (Fugl-Meyer motor assessment scale) were obtained with 33 subacute and 44 chronic stroke subjects. Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated and Stepwise multiple regression analyses were performed to investigate predictor variables of grip strength (α=0.05). Results: Significant correlations of similar magnitude were found between measures of global strength of the paretic UL and grip strength assessed with both the MST (0.66≤r≤0.78) and handgrip dynamometer (0.66≤r≤0.78) and between UL motor function and grip strength assessed with both the MST (0.50≤rs≤0.51) and hand-held dynamometer (0.50≤rs≤0.63) in subacute and chronic stroke subjects. Only global strength remained as a significant predictor variable of grip strength for the MST (0.43≤R2≤0.61) and for the handgrip dynamometer (0.44≤R2≤0.61) for both stroke subgroups. Conclusion: Grip strength assessed with the MST could be used to report paretic UL global strength.
Subject(s)
Humans , Hand Strength/physiology , Sphygmomanometers/standards , Stroke/physiopathology , Upper Extremity/physiopathology , Muscle Strength/physiology , Stroke Rehabilitation/methods , Stroke Rehabilitation/standardsABSTRACT
FUNDAMENTO: Os esfigmomanômetros auscultatórios de coluna de mercúrio para medida de pressão arterial (PA) vêm sendo banidos dos serviços de saúde em razão do risco de poluição e acidentes ambientais com o mercúrio. Os aparelhos aneroides poderiam ser uma alternativa. OBJETIVO: Validar o aparelho aneroide Missouri® de medida de pressão arterial em pacientes com câncer segundo o protocolo da European Society of Hypertension (ESH). MÉTODOS: Foram avaliados 33 pacientes internados ou em acompanhamento ambulatorial no Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, da FMUSP. Foram realizadas nove medidas sequenciais da pressão arterial por três observadores treinados e cegados, sendo intercaladas as medidas com os aparelhos de coluna de mercúrio e aneroide. As diferenças entre os valores das pressões arteriais sistólicas (PAS) e diastólicas (PAD) do aparelho teste com o de mercúrio foram classificadas segundo o protocolo da ESH. RESULTADOS: O equipamento Missouri® passou por todas as três fases exigidas pelo protocolo da ESH para PAS e PAD, sendo aprovado em todas. A média da diferença entre o teste e mercúrio foi de 0,62 (DP=4,53) e 0,06 (DP=6,57) mmHg para a PAS e PAD, respectivamente. Não foi observada associação entre as diferenças nas medidas da PA com sexo, idade, índice de massa corpórea e circunferência e comprimento braquial. CONCLUSÃO: Os resultados mostraram que o aparelho aneroide Missouri® atende às recomendações de acurácia da ESH para a medida da PAS e PAD, podendo ser utilizado para substituir o esfigmomanômetro de mercúrio.
BACKGROUND: Auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometers to measure blood pressure (BP) have been banned from health services because of risk of pollution and environmental accidents with mercury. Aneroid appliances could be an alternative. OBJECTIVE: To validate the MissouriTM aneroid device for blood pressure measurement in cancer patients according to the protocol of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH). METHODS: 33 patients hospitalized or under outpatient care at the Cancer Institute of the State of São Paulo, FMUSP, were evaluated. Three trained and blinded observers performed nine sequential blood pressure measurements interspersed with the mercury sphygmomanometers. The differences between the values of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of the test device with the mercury sphygmomanometer were classified according to the ESH protocol. RESULTS: The MissouriTM equipment underwent all three phases required by the ESH Protocol for SBP and DBP, and it was approved in all of the phases. The average difference between the test device and the mercury sphygmomanometer was 0.62 (SD = 4.53) and 0.06 (SD = 6.57) mmHg for SBP and DBP, respectively. No association was found between the differences in BP measurements with sex, age, body mass index and arm circumference and length. CONCLUSION: The results revealed that the aneroid MissouriTM device meets ESH accuracy recommendations for the measurement of SBP and DBP, and it can be used to replace the mercury sphygmomanometer.