| Literature DB >> 24694070 |
Jerzy Gosk1, Witold Wnukiewicz, Maciej Urban.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deficiency in upper limb development is a sequel of the perinatal brachial plexus palsy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of brachial plexus birth lesion on upper limb development.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24694070 PMCID: PMC3976457 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Gilbert’s scale for evaluation of shoulder function
| Stage 0 | Complete shoulder flail |
| Stage I | Abduction or flexion to 45°, no active external rotation |
| Stage II | Abduction < 90°, external rotation to neutral |
| Stage III | Abduction = 90°, weak external rotation |
| Stage IV | Abduction < 120°, incomplete external rotation |
| Stage V | Abduction > 120°, active external rotation |
Evaluation: stage III, IV, V are functionally useful.
Gilbert’s and Raimondi’s scale for evaluation of elbow function
| A. Elbow flexion | Nil or some contraction | 0 points |
| Incomplete flexion | 2 points | |
| Complete flexion | 3 points | |
| B. Elbow extension | No extension | 0 points |
| Weak extension | 1 point | |
| Good extension | 2 points | |
| C. Extension deficit | 0-30° | 0 points |
| 30-50° | -1 point | |
| More than 50° | -2 points |
Evaluation: grade I – poor recovery (0-1 points), grade II – average recovery (2-3 points), grade III – good recovery (4-5 points).
Grade III is functionally useful.
Modified MRC scale for evaluation of wrist function
| Grade 0 | No contraction or flicker of contraction |
| Grade 1 | Active movement with gravity eliminated |
| Grade 2 | Active movement against gravity only |
| Grade 3 | Active movement against resistance with motion reaching ≤ 1/2 normal range |
| Grade 4 | Active movement against resistance with motion reaching > 1/2 normal range |
| Grade 5 | Normal power and range of motion |
Evaluation: grade 3 and 4 are functionally useful both in flexion and extension (F/E).
Al-Qattan’s scale for evaluation of hand motor function
| Grade 0 | Useless hand | Complete paralysis or slight finger motion of no use, useless thumb |
| Grade 1 | Poor function | Only very weak grip possible |
| Grade 2 | Fair function | There is some active flexion and/or extension of the fingers and some thumb mobility but the hand posture is intrinsic minus |
| Grade 3 | Good function | Some as 2 but there is no intrinsic minus posture (intrinsic balance) |
| Grade 4 | Excellent function | Near normal active finger flexion/extension and thumb mobility, with some active intrinsic function |
| Grade 5 | Normal function |
Evaluation: grade 3 and 4 are functionally useful.
The comparison of healthy and sick limbs circumferences and lengths between upper-middle and total lesions
| Upper-middle | 95 | 96 | 97 | 97 | 95 | 96 |
| (UM) | (SD 3.6)* | (SD 2.4)* | (SD 3.2)* | (SD 4.2)* | (SD 3.4)* | (SD 6.2)* |
| n = 18 | ||||||
| Total | 94 | 92 | 94 | 91 | 88 | 88 |
| (T) | (SD 7.9)* | (SD 6.4)* | (SD 2.6)* | (SD 5.3)* | (SD 6.1)* | (SD 8.3)* |
| n = 26 | ||||||
| Statistical significance | ACSa | FCSb | ALSc | FLSd | HLSe | HWSf |
| UM / T | ||||||
| p = | NS | NS | 0.012 | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
a- arm circumference on sick side.
b- forearm circumference on sick side.
c- arm length on sick side.
d- forearm length on sick side.
e- hand length on sick side.
f- hand width on sick side.
*- average dimension on sick side expressed in % in relation to healthy side (100%).
The comparison of limb circumferences and lengths between genders and statistical significance analysis of parameters
| Male | 93 | 93 | 95 | 94 | 92 | 91 |
| (M) | (SD 7.4)* | (SD 6.0)* | (SD 3.0)* | (SD 6.4)* | (SD 6.4)* | (SD 8.4)* |
| n = 30 | ||||||
| Female | 97 | 95 | 95 | 92 | 91 | 91 |
| (F) | (SD 2.7)* | (SD 4.1)* | (SD 4.1)* | (SD 4.2)* | (SD 6.0)* | (SD 9.6)* |
| n = 14 | ||||||
| Statistical significance | ACSa | FCSb | ALSc | FLSd | HLSe | HWSf |
| M / F | ||||||
| p = | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
a- arm circumference on sick side.
b- forearm circumference on sick side.
c- arm length on sick side.
d- forearm length on sick side.
e- hand length on sick side.
f- hand width on sick side.
*- average dimension on sick side expressed in % in relation to healthy side (100%).
The comparison of arm circumference and length decrease level on sick side with useful and useless shoulder function
| Useful (UF) | 95 (SD 3.6)* | p = NS |
| n = 38 | ||
| Useless (UL) | 94 (SD 6.7)* | |
| n = 6 | ||
| Shoulder function | ALSb | Statistical significance |
| (%) | UF / UL | |
| Useful (UF) | 95 (SD 3.4)* | p = NS |
| n = 38 | ||
| Useless (UL) | 95 (SD 1.8)* | |
| n = 6 |
a- arm circumference on sick side.
b- arm length on sick side.
*- average dimension on sick side expressed in % in relation to healthy side (100%).
The comparison of the arm circumferences decrease level on sick side with useful and useless elbow function
| Useful (UF) | 96 (SD 3.2)* | p = NS |
| n = 28 | ||
| Useless (UL) | 92 (SD 9.7)* | |
| n = 16 |
a- arm circumference on sick side.
*- average dimension on sick side expressed in % in relation to healthy side (100%).
The comparison of forearm circumferences decrease level on sick side with useful and useless wrist function
| Useful (UF) | 95 (SD 3.4)* | p = NS |
| n = 30 | ||
| Useless (UL) | 91 (SD 7.4)* | |
| n = 14 |
a- forearm circumference on sick side.
*- average dimension on sick side expressed in % in relation to healthy side (100%).
The comparison of limb circumferences and lengths between groups dependent on type of surgery
| Neurolysis (N) | 95 | 95 | 95 | 96 | 94 | 95 |
| n = 28 | (SD 3.6)* | (SD 4.0)* | (SD 4.0)* | (SD 5.6)* | (SD 5.5)* | (SD 6.2)* |
| Reconstruction (R) | 93 | 92 | 95 | 89 | 87 | 85 |
| n = 16 | (SD 9.4)* | (SD 7.0)* | (SD 1.5)* | (SD 3.0)* | (SD 5.3)* | (SD 7.7)* |
| Statistical significance | ACSa | FCSb | ALSc | FLSd | HLSe | HWSf |
| N / R | ||||||
| p = | NS | NS | NS | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
a- arm circumference on sick side.
b forearm circumference on sick side.
c- arm length on sick side.
d- forearm length on sick side.
e- hand length on sick side.
f- hand width on sick side.
*- average dimension on sick side expressed in % in relation to healthy side (100%).
The correlation between time of surgical procedure and the degree of the underdevelopment of upper extremity
| TS* / ACSa (%) | 0.074630 | 0.630191 |
| TS* / FCSb (%) | 0.295188 | 0.051742 |
| TS* / ALSc (%) | -0.212970 | 0.165138 |
| TS* / FLSd (%) | -0.366972 | 0.134134 |
| TS* / HLSe (%) | -0.273343 | 0.272419 |
| TS* / HWSf (%) | 0.324802 | 0.105456 |
a- arm circumference on sick side (in % in relation to healthy side).
b- forearm circumference on sick side (in % in relation to healthy side).
c- arm length on sick side (in % in relation to healthy side).
d- forearm length on sick side (in % in relation to healthy side).
e- hand length on sick side (in % in relation to healthy side).
f- hand width on sick side (in % in relation to healthy side).
*- time of surgery.
Figure 1The comparison of hand dimensions decrease level on sick side with its useful and useless function.