| Literature DB >> 30276195 |
Raquel Cantero-Téllez1, Santiago García Orza2, Mark D Bishop3, Pedro Berjano4, Jorge Hugo Villafañe5.
Abstract
The main goal of this study was to determinate the extent of the relationship between shoulder pain and time of wrist and thumb immobilization required after injury. One hundred twenty-three consecutive subjects presenting to the practice of different Orthopedic Specialist hospitals with a diagnosis of distal radius or scaphoid fracture that required wrist and thumb immobilization were screened for eligibility criteria. Upper extremity pain and the need for shoulder rehabilitation were assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline after immobilization period (T0) 1- and 3-month follow-up (1-FU/2-FU). More than 35% patients had shoulder pain (VAS>40 mm) after immobilization of the wrist. Shoulder pain intensity after immobilization and at follow-up (1 and 3 months) was strongly correlated with the duration of the immobilization. Immobilization for 3.5 weeks or longer was the strongest predictor for the need of subsequent shoulder rehabilitation. An increased the time of immobilization of the wrist is associated with an increase in shoulder pain and need for shoulder rehabilitation in patients after wrist fracture.Entities:
Keywords: Immobilization; Pain; Shoulder; Wrist
Year: 2018 PMID: 30276195 PMCID: PMC6165988 DOI: 10.12965/jer.36292.146
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exerc Rehabil ISSN: 2288-176X
Baseline demographics (n=92)
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| Age (yr) | 42.0±14.7 |
|
| |
| Sex | |
| Male | 48 (52.2) |
| Female | 44 (47.8) |
|
| |
| Diagnosis | |
| Scaphoid fracture | 38 (41.3) |
| Distal Radius fracture | 54 (58.7) |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).
Pearson correlation coefficient between shoulder pain and time of immobilization
| VAS | Value | Time of immobilization (wk) | Scaphoid fracture | Female sex | Shoulder treatments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAS.T0 | 0.880 | 0.878 | 0.072 | 0.793 | |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.498 | <0.001 | ||
|
| |||||
| VAS.1-FU | 0.891 | 0.875 | 0.027 | 0.822 | |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.798 | <0.001 | ||
|
| |||||
| VAS.2-FU | 0.350 | 0.303 | 0.004 | 0.304 | |
| <0.001 | 0.003 | 0.971 | 0.003 | ||
VAS, visual analogue scale; T0, after immobilization; 1-FU, 1-month follow-up; 2-FU, 3-month follow-up.
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for each instrument (n=92)
| Instrument | Area | 95% CI | Optimal cutoff value for change on instrument | Sensitivity at optimal cutoff (%) | Specificity at optimal cutoff (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAS.T0 | 0.985 | 0.96–1.00 | 35.0 | 97.4 | 3.7 |
| VAS.1-FU | 0.966 | 0.93–1.00 | 40.0 | 92.1 | 3.7 |
| VAS.2-FU | 0.669 | 0.56–0.78 | 15.0 | 63.2 | 25.9 |
| Weeks | 0.963 | 0.92–0.99 | 3.5 | 97.0 | 32.0 |
| Age | 0.480 | 0.36–0.61 | 37.0 | 57.9 | 55.6 |
CI, confidence interval; VAS, visual analogue scale; T0, after immobilization; 1-FU, 1-month follow-up; 2-FU, 3-month follow-up.
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.