The impact of shoulder pathology on individuals with distal radius fracture.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pathology can occur concurrently with a distal radius fracture (DRF) but few studies have examined this population. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to expand the understanding of the impact of shoulder pathology on individuals with DRF. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed Methods Design. METHODS: A total of 45 participants with a DRF were categorized into a DRF only (n = 29) and shoulder pathology concurrent with DRF (SPCDRF) (n = 16) groups. Quantitative data gathered included demographics, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia-11, Visual Analog Scale, and Compensatory Mechanism Checklist. Qualitative interviews were performed with 7 participants in the SPCDRF group. Within group correlations were analyzed via the Spearman Rank. The Mann Whitney U test was used to compare the two groups. Qualitative analysis was performed to describe the experience of participants in the SPCDRF group. A mixed methods analysis compared quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: Sixteen participants (35.6%) in the sample presented with shoulder pathology; 6 participants (37.5%) presented at initial evaluation due to the fall; 10 participants (62.5%) developed shoulder pathology due to compensation or disuse. Average number of days to develop shoulder pathology after the DRF was 43 days. SPCDRF participants had significantly greater pain levels (p = .02) and more activity avoidance (p = .03) than the DRF only group. Four qualitative themes emerged: It's difficult to perform occupations and changes had to be made; There is fear and uncertainty; The impact of pain; Tried to be normal but could not Mixed methods analysis found that qualitative data further illuminated quantitative findings. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with shoulder pathology concurrent with a DRF may present with higher pain levels and avoid activity more. In addition, they may describe fearfulness in using their injured upper extremity especially if they have high levels of pain. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed Methods Design.

Edema assessment and management practice patterns among hand therapists: Survey research.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey research. INTRODUCTION: Recently, the lymphatic system's role in edema management has been reported; however, it is unclear how this evidence has translated into hand therapy practice. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Survey research was performed to explore edema education and management. METHODS: A 22-question survey containing questions related to edema education and practice was administered to members of the American Society of Hand Therapists. Demographic data were obtained. Frequencies were examined using Chi-square and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: A total of 436 members responded to the survey (92% occupational therapists [OTs]; 6% physical therapists [PTs]). Most hand therapists received edema education through on-the-job training and, or continuing education. PTs were more likely to learn the difference between acute, subacute, chronic edema (P < .01; 36% PTs, 17% OTs) and the role of the lymphatic system in edema management (P < .002; 36% PTs, 14% OTs) in entry-level education compared to OTs. OTs with an MS or OTD were more likely to learn the difference between acute, subacute, chronic edema (P < .001; 23% OTD, 24% MS, 10% BS) and the role of the lymphatic system in edema management (P < .004; 19% OTD, 19% MS, 7% BS) in entry-level education than BS-trained OTs. Duration and feel were common ways therapists assessed and identified differences in edema. Many therapists acknowledged the role of the lymphatic system in edema reduction, but responses lacked specificity. CONCLUSION: The survey results suggest most hand therapists learn edema management outside of academic programs, although this may be changing in OT with advancement of the entry-level degree.