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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Şimşek, Ersin Çağrı, Uslu Güvendi, Ece, Şimşek, Aylin, Kocabaş, Uğur, Varış, Eser, Gürbüz, Doğaç Çağlar, Aşkin, Ayhan
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