Poststroke hand swelling and oedema: prevalence and relationship with impairment and disability.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of swelling and oedema of the hand in stroke patients and relationships with impairments and disability. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Stroke unit at Rehabilitation Centre De Hoogstraat, The Netherlands. SUBJECTS: Eighty-eight adult stroke patients who were admitted for clinical rehabilitation during one year (2000). MEASUREMENTS AND METHODS: Assessment took place two weeks after admission to the rehabilitation centre. Degree of swelling was measured with a hand volumeter and oedema was defined as a volumeter score deviating more than two standard deviations from the expected score derived from population data. Further assessment included tonus (Modified Ashworth Score), sensibility, tactile inattention, carefulness, and motor function (Utrecht Arm/Hand Test). Arm disability was measured with Frenchay Arm Test and Nine-hole Peg Test. RESULTS: Some degree of hand swelling was present in 72.7% and oedema in 33.0% of our patients. Swelling and oedema were significantly more often seen in patients with hypertonic fingers and impaired sensibility. Patients with hand oedema had significantly worse Frenchay Arm Test and Nine-hole Peg Test scores. CONCLUSIONS: Swelling and oedema of the hand are common among stroke patients in clinical rehabilitation.

Assessment of oedema in stroke patients: comparison of visual inspection by therapists and volumetric assessment.

PURPOSE: To examine the agreement of assessment of hand oedema in stroke patients by clinical judgement and by use of a hand volumeter. METHOD: A total of 88 rehabilitation patients with stroke received both assessments. Experienced physical therapists classified oedema as 'none', 'minor' or 'severe'. Swelling was independently measured with a hand volumeter. Population data were used to adjust volumeter reading differences for handedness and side of paresis, and to define a cut-off point for oedema of 2 SD of the population distribution. RESULTS: Based on volumetric assessment, 33% of patients had oedema. Physical therapists classified 50% of patients as having minor or severe oedema. Results of both methods were clearly related, but agreement between the assessments was not more than 'fair' (67% agreement; Kappa 0.34). The level of agreement was not substantially affected by the cut-off point used for the volumeter score, the time between both assessments or by the side of paresis. CONCLUSION: Agreement between clinical and volumetric assessment of hand oedema in stroke patients is less than desirable. Volumetric assessment of oedema is recommended for research purposes.