METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 65 stroke survivors with UL dysfunction (mean (SD) age = 64.83 (8.05) years, mean (SD) post-stroke duration 41.62 (35.24) months) who attended community-based rehabilitation program. Upper limb functionality was assessed using the UL items of Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SSQOL), the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Scale and the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test (JTHFT). The stroke survivors' performance in completing JTHFT using their affected dominant hand was compared with standard norms.
RESULTS: The three most affected UL daily living tasks were writing (64.7%, n=42), opening a jar (63.1%, n=41) and putting on socks (58.5%, n=38). As for IADL, the mean (SD) score of Lawton scale was 3.26 (2.41), with more than 50% unable to handle finance, do the laundry and prepare meals for themselves. Performances of stroke survivors were much slower than normal population in all tasks of JTHFT (p<0.05), with largest speed difference demonstrated for 'stacking objects' task (mean difference 43.24 secs (p=0.003) and 24.57 (p<0.001) in males and females, respectively.
CONCLUSION: UL functions are significantly impaired among stroke survivors despite undergoing rehabilitation. Rehabilitation professionals should prioritize highly problematic tasks when retraining UL for greater post-stroke functionality.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions, or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Embase, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to 10 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related upper limb or neck MSDs (or both) among office workers. We only included studies where the baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, was less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the interventions and outcomes in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (2165 workers). We judged one study to have a low risk of bias and the remaining 14 studies to have a high risk of bias due to small numbers of participants and the potential for selection bias.Physical ergonomic interventionsThere is inconsistent evidence for arm supports and alternative computer mouse designs. There is moderate-quality evidence that an arm support with an alternative computer mouse (two studies) reduced the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99), but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck or shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There is moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck or shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not considerably reduced when comparing an alternative computer mouse and a conventional mouse (two studies; neck or shoulder: RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), and also when comparing an arm support with a conventional mouse and a conventional mouse alone (two studies) (neck or shoulder: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 6.98; right upper limb: RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.96).Workstation adjustment (one study) and sit-stand desks (one study) did not have an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort, compared to no intervention.Organisational ergonomic interventionsThere is very low-quality evidence that supplementary breaks (two studies) reduce discomfort of the neck (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.11), right shoulder or upper arm (MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.19), and right forearm or wrist or hand (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08) among data entry workers.Training in ergonomic interventionsThere is low to very low-quality evidence in five studies that participatory and active training interventions may or may not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb or neck or both.Multifaceted ergonomic interventionsFor multifaceted interventions there is one study (very low-quality evidence) that showed no effect on any of the six upper limb pain outcomes measured in that study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs. For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect. For organisational interventions, in the form of supplementary breaks, there is very low-quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort. For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions among office workers.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of workplace ergonomic design or training interventions, or both, for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group Database and Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register to July 2010, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre database to November 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic workplace interventions for preventing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs. We included only studies with a baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, of less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the intervention and outcome in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (2397 workers). Eleven studies were conducted in an office environment and two in a healthcare setting. We judged one study to have a low risk of bias. The 13 studies evaluated effectiveness of ergonomic equipment, supplementary breaks or reduced work hours, ergonomic training, a combination of ergonomic training and equipment, and patient lifting interventions for preventing work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck in adults.Overall, there was moderate-quality evidence that arm support with alternative mouse reduced the incidence of neck/shoulder disorders (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99) but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There was also moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not reduced when comparing alternative mouse and conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), arm support and no arm support with conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.24; right upper limb RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.51 to 2.29), and alternative mouse with arm support and conventional mouse with arm support (neck/shoulder RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.12; right upper limb RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.36).There was low-quality evidence that using an alternative mouse with arm support compared to conventional mouse with arm support reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (SMD -0.39; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.10). There was low- to very low-quality evidence that other interventions were not effective in reducing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the use of arm support with alternative mouse may reduce the incidence of neck/shoulder MSDs, but not right upper limb MSDs. Moreover, we found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb MSDs is not reduced when comparing alternative and conventional mouse with and without arm support. However, given there were multiple comparisons made involving a number of interventions and outcomes, high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions clearly. While we found very-low- to low-quality evidence to suggest that other ergonomic interventions do not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck, this was limited by the paucity and heterogeneity of available studies. This review highlights the need for high-quality RCTs examining the prevention of MSDs of the upper limb and neck.
Methods: Nineteen young state-level weightlifters performed concentric strength tests of the upper limbs using an isokinetic dynamometer. Peak torque/body weight was measured for each weightlifter in dominant and non-dominant limbs.
Results: Peak torque/body weight was significantly different in external rotation (p 0.05). Time to peak torque in external rotation was less in the dominant than in the non-dominant limb. However, opposite results were obtained in external rotation, whereby time to peak torque was longer in the dominant limb compared to the non-dominant limb. Similarly, no significant difference was found between dominant and non-dominant limbs in terms of average power (p > 0.05).
Conclusions: The findings of this study may help in establishing potential imbalance in variables of muscular contractions between dominant and non-dominant limbs of weightlifters. This may help to maximise performance and minimise potential shoulder injury.
Methods: Data were obtained from the Social Security Organization, Malaysia database consisting of 10,049 RTW program participants in 2010-2014. The dependent variable was the RTW outcome which consisted of RTW with same employer, RTW with new employer or unsuccessful return. Multinomial logistic regression was performed to test the likelihood of successful return with same employer and new employer against unsuccessful return.
Results: Overall, 65.3% of injured workers were successfully returned to employment, 52.8% to the same employer and 12.5% to new employer. Employer interest; motivation; age 30-49 years; intervention less than 9 months; occupational disease; injuries in the lower limbs, upper limbs, and general injuries; and working in the manufacturing, services, and electrical/electronics were associated with returning to work with the same employer against unsuccessful return. Male, employer interest, motivation, age 49 years or younger, intervention less than 6 months, occupational disease, injuries in the upper limbs and services sector of employment were associated with returning to new employer against unsuccessful return.
Conclusion: There is a need to strengthen employer commitment for early and intensified intervention that will lead to improvement in the RTW outcome.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report 20 consecutive patients with end-stage renal failure (ESRF) who had central vein occlusion and were not amenable to endovascular intervention. They underwent extra-anatomical vein to vein surgical bypass. The axillary and iliac or femoral veins were approached via infraclavicular and extraperitoneal groin incisions respectively. In all the patients, an externally supported 6 or 8 mm polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) graft was used as a conduit and was tunnelled extra-anatomical. All patients had double antiplatelet (Aspirin and Clopidogrel) therapy post-operatively.
RESULTS: Substantial improvement in the facial, neck and upper limb swelling was noticed following this diversion surgery. The vein to vein bypass was patent at 12 months in 10 out of 20 patients. Graft infection occurred in two (10%) cases. Re-thrombectomy or assisted patency procedure (stent/plasty) was done in four (20%) cases. The patients with preoperative fistula flow rate of more than 1500 ml/min and post-operative graft flow rate of more than a 1000 ml/min were patent at 12 months (P=0.025 and p=0.034 respectively).
CONCLUSION: Axillary to iliac/femoral vein bypass can salvage functioning ipsilateral fistula threatened by occluded upper central vein.