Cargando…
The effect on upper extremity functions of cardiac electronic device placement on the dominant hand side
BACKGROUND: Although cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is considered to be minor surgery, almost 60% of the patients suffer from shoulder‐related problems a short time after the procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine the possible effects of the preference of th...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457371/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31007794 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12156 |
_version_ | 1783409891506913280 |
---|---|
author | Şimşek, Ersin Çağrı Uslu Güvendi, Ece Şimşek, Aylin Kocabaş, Uğur Varış, Eser Gürbüz, Doğaç Çağlar Aşkin, Ayhan |
author_facet | Şimşek, Ersin Çağrı Uslu Güvendi, Ece Şimşek, Aylin Kocabaş, Uğur Varış, Eser Gürbüz, Doğaç Çağlar Aşkin, Ayhan |
author_sort | Şimşek, Ersin Çağrı |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Although cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is considered to be minor surgery, almost 60% of the patients suffer from shoulder‐related problems a short time after the procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine the possible effects of the preference of the dominant side for CIED implantation on the ipsilateral superior extremity functions. METHODS: The study included a total of 107 patients who had been living with a CIED for >6 months. Patients were separated into two groups according to the dominant hand and side of the CIED. The ipsilateral dominant‐hand group comprised those with a CIED on the same side as the dominant hand and the contralateral dominant‐hand group included patients with the CIED placed on the contralateral side to the dominant hand. Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, quick disability of the arm shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) and maximum isometric grip strength tests were used to evaluate the upper extremity disabilities. RESULTS: No significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of VAS pain scores (P = 0.10), QuickDASH scores (P = 0.21), and limitations of the shoulder joint range of motion (P = 0.192). The maximum isometric grip strength was significantly different in the right hands between two groups (34 [16‐95]‐40 [24‐85]) (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The present study shows that the joint range of motion limitation, pain, and disability of the upper extremity were no different in the affected arm compared to the healthy contralateral side with respect to the placement of the CIED on the dominant or non‐dominant side. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6457371 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64573712019-04-19 The effect on upper extremity functions of cardiac electronic device placement on the dominant hand side Şimşek, Ersin Çağrı Uslu Güvendi, Ece Şimşek, Aylin Kocabaş, Uğur Varış, Eser Gürbüz, Doğaç Çağlar Aşkin, Ayhan J Arrhythm Original Article BACKGROUND: Although cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is considered to be minor surgery, almost 60% of the patients suffer from shoulder‐related problems a short time after the procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine the possible effects of the preference of the dominant side for CIED implantation on the ipsilateral superior extremity functions. METHODS: The study included a total of 107 patients who had been living with a CIED for >6 months. Patients were separated into two groups according to the dominant hand and side of the CIED. The ipsilateral dominant‐hand group comprised those with a CIED on the same side as the dominant hand and the contralateral dominant‐hand group included patients with the CIED placed on the contralateral side to the dominant hand. Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, quick disability of the arm shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) and maximum isometric grip strength tests were used to evaluate the upper extremity disabilities. RESULTS: No significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of VAS pain scores (P = 0.10), QuickDASH scores (P = 0.21), and limitations of the shoulder joint range of motion (P = 0.192). The maximum isometric grip strength was significantly different in the right hands between two groups (34 [16‐95]‐40 [24‐85]) (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The present study shows that the joint range of motion limitation, pain, and disability of the upper extremity were no different in the affected arm compared to the healthy contralateral side with respect to the placement of the CIED on the dominant or non‐dominant side. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6457371/ /pubmed/31007794 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12156 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Arrhythmia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of the Japanese Heart Rhythm Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Şimşek, Ersin Çağrı Uslu Güvendi, Ece Şimşek, Aylin Kocabaş, Uğur Varış, Eser Gürbüz, Doğaç Çağlar Aşkin, Ayhan The effect on upper extremity functions of cardiac electronic device placement on the dominant hand side |
title | The effect on upper extremity functions of cardiac electronic device placement on the dominant hand side |
title_full | The effect on upper extremity functions of cardiac electronic device placement on the dominant hand side |
title_fullStr | The effect on upper extremity functions of cardiac electronic device placement on the dominant hand side |
title_full_unstemmed | The effect on upper extremity functions of cardiac electronic device placement on the dominant hand side |
title_short | The effect on upper extremity functions of cardiac electronic device placement on the dominant hand side |
title_sort | effect on upper extremity functions of cardiac electronic device placement on the dominant hand side |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457371/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31007794 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12156 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT simsekersincagrı theeffectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside AT usluguvendiece theeffectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside AT simsekaylin theeffectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside AT kocabasugur theeffectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside AT varıseser theeffectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside AT gurbuzdogaccaglar theeffectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside AT askinayhan theeffectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside AT simsekersincagrı effectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside AT usluguvendiece effectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside AT simsekaylin effectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside AT kocabasugur effectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside AT varıseser effectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside AT gurbuzdogaccaglar effectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside AT askinayhan effectonupperextremityfunctionsofcardiacelectronicdeviceplacementonthedominanthandside |