Open AccessThe effect on upper extremity functions of cardiac electronic device placement on the dominant hand side
Author(s) -
Şimşek Ersin Çağrı,
Uslu Güvendi Ece,
Şimşek Aylin,
Kocabaş Uğur,
Varış Eser,
Gürbüz Doğaç Çağlar,
Aşkin Ayhan
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of arrhythmia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.463
H-Index - 21
eISSN - 1883-2148
pISSN - 1880-4276
DOI - 10.1002/joa3.12156
Subject(s) - medicine , dash , range of motion , grip strength , isometric exercise , visual analogue scale , upper limb , physical therapy , physical medicine and rehabilitation , surgery , computer science , operating system
Abstract 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 (Quick DASH ) 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), Quick DASH 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.