Trunk asymmetry is associated with dominance preference: results from a cross-sectional study of 1029 children.
Laterality
Scoliosis
Spinal assessment
Spinal posture
Journal
Brazilian journal of physical therapy
ISSN: 1809-9246
Titre abrégé: Braz J Phys Ther
Pays: Brazil
ID NLM: 101615124
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
05
02
2018
revised:
01
08
2018
accepted:
06
08
2018
pubmed:
1
9
2018
medline:
16
10
2019
entrez:
1
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In some studies, an association has been reported between laterality of the curve in scoliotic adolescents and hand dominance; however, additional studies have to be performed to confirm these findings. The objective of this study is to evaluate the prevalence between trunk asymmetry and side dominance in hand, foot and visual laterality in adolescents. This was a cross-sectional study secondary analysis. In total, 1029 children (491 females) were enrolled from the Secondary School of Brescia, Italy, with a mean age of 12 (SD=0.9 years). All subjects underwent a screening program divided into three phases: Phase 1, collection of demographic and clinical characteristics; Phase 2, spine evaluation with a plumb line and Bunnell Scoliometer; and Phase 3, evaluation of side dominance of the eye, hand and foot with a 4-item survey. Our data showed a prevalence of 0.43%, 1.01% and 0.87% for thoracic, thoracolumbar and lumbar curves, respectively, with a right-side dominance and a prevalence of 2.72%, 2.54% and 0.65% for thoracic, thoracolumbar and lumbar curves, respectively, with a left-side dominance. The left-side dominance could have a prevalence on trunk asymmetry in thoracic and thoraco-lumbar curves. Our study suggests that the clinical evaluation of trunk asymmetry should be associated with the evaluation of laterality.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In some studies, an association has been reported between laterality of the curve in scoliotic adolescents and hand dominance; however, additional studies have to be performed to confirm these findings.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to evaluate the prevalence between trunk asymmetry and side dominance in hand, foot and visual laterality in adolescents.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a cross-sectional study secondary analysis. In total, 1029 children (491 females) were enrolled from the Secondary School of Brescia, Italy, with a mean age of 12 (SD=0.9 years). All subjects underwent a screening program divided into three phases: Phase 1, collection of demographic and clinical characteristics; Phase 2, spine evaluation with a plumb line and Bunnell Scoliometer; and Phase 3, evaluation of side dominance of the eye, hand and foot with a 4-item survey.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Our data showed a prevalence of 0.43%, 1.01% and 0.87% for thoracic, thoracolumbar and lumbar curves, respectively, with a right-side dominance and a prevalence of 2.72%, 2.54% and 0.65% for thoracic, thoracolumbar and lumbar curves, respectively, with a left-side dominance.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The left-side dominance could have a prevalence on trunk asymmetry in thoracic and thoraco-lumbar curves. Our study suggests that the clinical evaluation of trunk asymmetry should be associated with the evaluation of laterality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30166088
pii: S1413-3555(18)30076-5
doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.08.005
pmc: PMC6630189
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
324-328Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.
Références
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Mar 1;25(5):570-4
pubmed: 10749633
Cortex. 2000 Dec;36(5):679-89
pubmed: 11195914
Int J Neurosci. 2001 Sep;110(1-2):25-41
pubmed: 11697209
Pediatr Rehabil. 2003 Jul-Dec;6(3-4):137-70
pubmed: 14713582
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2002;91:59-63
pubmed: 15457694
Eur J Epidemiol. 2004;19(10):969-72
pubmed: 15575356
Brain. 1992 Apr;115 ( Pt 2):589-605
pubmed: 1606483
Pediatr Rehabil. 2006 Jul-Sep;9(3):259-66
pubmed: 17050403
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006;123:442-8
pubmed: 17108466
Scoliosis. 2006 Nov 30;1:19
pubmed: 17137516
Pediatr Surg Int. 2008 Feb;24(2):129-44
pubmed: 17891405
Scoliosis. 2008 Sep 23;3:13
pubmed: 18811937
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991 Jan;16(1):84-7
pubmed: 2003242
Med Hypotheses. 2011 Feb;76(2):274-6
pubmed: 21036482
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;176:264-7
pubmed: 22744505
Eur Spine J. 2014 Jun;23(6):1232-6
pubmed: 24633781
Hum Factors. 2015 Mar;57(2):218-26
pubmed: 25850153
Braz J Phys Ther. 2016 Feb 16;20(3):275-84
pubmed: 27437719
Eur J Med Res. 2017 Sep 29;22(1):36
pubmed: 28962640
Braz J Phys Ther. 2018 Jan - Feb;22(1):49-54
pubmed: 29169996
Braz J Phys Ther. 2018 Jan - Feb;22(1):70-76
pubmed: 29239806
Scoliosis Spinal Disord. 2018 Jan 10;13:3
pubmed: 29435499
Braz J Phys Ther. 2018 May - Jun;22(3):248-253
pubmed: 29550259
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Jan;18(1):8-13
pubmed: 8434329
Acta Paediatr. 1993 Jan;82(1):77-82
pubmed: 8453227
Genetica. 1995;96(3):247-55
pubmed: 8522164
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Aug;80(8):1097-106
pubmed: 9730118