| Literature DB >> 32616977 |
Leonardo Coêlho de Alencar Barreto1, Carlos Henrique Fernandes1, Luis Renato Nakachima1, João Baptista Gomes Dos Santos1, Marcela Fernandes1, Flavio Faloppa1.
Abstract
Objective To determine the prevalence of the Linburg-Comstock anomaly in a Brazilian population sample. Methods A cross-sectional observational study was carried out between October 2017 and April 2018. We included male and female volunteers aged 18 years or older. The presence of the Linburg-Comstock anomaly was determined by performing the clinical tests described by Linburg and Comstock. The data were analyzed using the GraphPad Prism software, and we considered differences with p < 0.05. Results The study analyzed 1,008 volunteers (2,016 hands) with a mean age of 38.3 years, 531 (52.67%) of which were male, and 477 (47.33%) were female. The Linburg-Comstock anomaly was diagnosed in 564 (55.95%) individuals, and it was bilateral in 300 (53.2%) of them, right-sided in 162 (28.72%), and left-sided in 102 (18.08%). No significant differences were found when comparing the prevalence between genders. However, a the prevalence of the right-sided anomaly in the male population (n = 99; 70.21%) was higher than in the female one (n = 63; 51.21%), with p = 0.0016. In addition, the presence of pain by the maneuver described by Linburg and Comstock was more prevalent in women (n = 150; 54.94%) than in men (n = 105; 36.08%), with p = 0.0001. These results show the importance of epidemiological studies on the Linburg-Comstock anomaly, mainly in order to investigate the presence of associated conditions. Conclusion The prevalence of the Linburg-Comstock anomaly in the studied population was of 55.95%, and it was bilateral in 53.2% of the volunteers. The presence of the connection was observed more frequently in the right side and among men, but the pain symptom was more frequent among women.Entities:
Keywords: anatomy; congenital hand deformities; finger joint abnormalities; prevalence; tendons
Year: 2020 PMID: 32616977 PMCID: PMC7316551 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701280
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) ISSN: 0102-3616
Fig. 1(A) Test for the diagnosis of the Linburg-Comstock anomaly. Active flexion of the thumb causes concomitant involuntary flexion of the second finger. (B) Pain identification test. Active thumb flexion while the examiner maintains the passive extension of the long fingers to assess the presence of pain.
Fig. 2Flowchart of the methodology adopted in the present study.
Fig. 3Prevalence of the Linburg-Comstock anomaly in a sample of the Brazilian population. 1,008 individuals were analyzed.
Linburg-Comstock anomaly according to gender and laterality
| Men | Women | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Yes | No | ||||||
| n | % | N | % | n | % | n | % |
| |
|
| 291 | 54.8 | 240 | 45.19 | 273 | 57.23 | 204 | 42.77 | 0.4377 |
|
| 150 | 51.54 | 141 | 48.46 | 150 | 54.94 | 123 | 45.06 | 0.7769 |
|
| 99 | 70.2 | 42 | 48.46 | 63 | 51.21 | 60 | 48.79 |
|
|
| 42 | 29.8 | 57 | 57.58 | 60 | 48.79 | 21 | 25.92 | 0.8977 |
Note: The Chi-squared (χ 2 ) test was used, and values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Fig. 4Prevalence of the Linburg-Comstock anomaly in a multiethnic population according to the laterality. 1,008 Individuals were analyzed.
Presence of pain caused by the Linburg-Comstock anomaly according to gender
| Yes | No | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % |
| |
|
| 105 | 36.08 | 186 | 63.92 |
|
|
| 150 | 54.94 | 123 | 45.06 |
Note: The Chi-squared (χ 2 ) test was used, and values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Fig. 1(A) Teste para diagnóstico da anomalia de Linburg-Comstock. Flexão ativa do polegar provoca flexão involuntária concomitante do segundo quirodáctilo. (B) Teste para identificação de dor. Flexão ativa do polegar enquanto o examinador mantém a extensão passiva dos dedos longos para avaliar a presença de dor.
Fig. 2Fluxograma da metodologia adotada no presente estudo.
Fig. 3Prevalência da anomalia de Linburg-Comstock em uma amostra da população brasileira. Foram analisados 1.008 indivíduos.
Anomalia de Linburg-Comstock de acordo com o gênero e lateralidade
| Homens | Mulheres | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sim | Não | Sim | Não | ||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % |
Valor de
| |
|
| 291 | 54,8 | 240 | 45,19 | 273 | 57,23 | 204 | 42,77 | 0,4377 |
|
| 150 | 51,54 | 141 | 48,46 | 150 | 54,94 | 123 | 45,06 | 0,7769 |
|
| 99 | 70,2 | 42 | 48,46 | 63 | 51,21 | 60 | 48,79 |
|
|
| 42 | 29,8 | 57 | 57,58 | 60 | 48,79 | 21 | 25,92 | 0,8977 |
Nota: Foi usado o teste qui-quadrado (χ 2 ), sendo estatisticamente significativos valores de p < 0,05.
Fig. 4Prevalência da anomalia de Linburg-Comstock em uma população multirracial de acordo com a lateralidade. Foram analisados 1.008 indivíduos.
Presença da dor na anomalia de Linburg-Comstock de acordo com o gênero
| Sim | Não | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % |
Valor de
| |
|
| 105 | 36,08 | 186 | 63,92 |
|
|
| 150 | 54,94 | 123 | 45,06 |
Nota: Foi usado o teste qui-quadrado (χ 2 ), sendo estatisticamente significativos valores de p < 0,05.