Comparison between Two Different Handgrip Systems and Protocols on Force Reduction in Handgrip Assessment.

Dynamometer Force-time characteristics Hospitalization Independent living Muscle fatigue Vigorimeter

Journal

Gerontology
ISSN: 1423-0003
Titre abrégé: Gerontology
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 7601655

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
received: 22 04 2022
accepted: 15 03 2023
pubmed: 6 6 2023
medline: 6 6 2023
entrez: 5 6 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Fatigue resistance (FR) can be assessed as the time during which grip strength (GS) drops to 50% of its maximum during a sustained maximal voluntary contraction. For the first time, we compared force-time characteristics during FR test between two different handgrip systems and investigated age- and clinical-related differences in order to verify if a briefer test protocol (i.e., until 75%) could be sufficiently informative. A cohort of young healthy controls (Y, <30 y, 24 ± 3 y, 54% women), middle-aged (MA, 30-65 y, 47 ± 11 y, 54% women), and older (OLD, >65 y, 77 ± 7 y, 50% women) community-dwelling persons, and hospitalized geriatric patients (HOSP, 84 ± 5 y, 50% women) performed the FR test. For this purpose, an adapted vigorimeter (original rubber bulb of the Martin Vigorimeter connected to a Unik 5000 pressure gauge) here defined as "pneumatic handgrip system" (Pneu) and Dynamometer G200 system (original Jamar Dynamometer handle with an in-build strength gauge) here defined as "hydraulic handgrip system" (Hydr) were used. Force-time curves were analysed from 100% to 75% and from 75% to 50% of the initial maximal GS during the FR test. The area under the curve (GW) was calculated by integrating the actual GS at each time interval (i.e., 1/5,000 s) and corrected for body weight (GW/body weight). For both systems, we found fair associations between FR100-50 and FR100-75 (Pneu mean difference = 50.1 s [95% CI: 47.9-52.4], r2 = 0.48; Hydr mean difference = 28.4 s [95% CI: 27.0-29.7], r2 = 0.52, all p < 0.001) and also moderate associations between GW(100-50)/body weight and GW(100-75)/body weight (Pneu mean difference = 32.1 kPa*s/kg [95% CI: 30.6-33.6], r2 = 0.72; Hydr mean difference = 8.1 kg*s/kg [95% CI: 7.7-8.6], r2 = 0.68, all p < 0.001). Between MA and OLD, we found a significant age-related difference in the GW results in the first 25% strength decay for Pneu (10.2 ± 0.6 kPa*s/kg against 7.1 ± 1.2 kPa*s/kg, respectively). The brief test protocol is valid. Differences within the first 25% strength decay in GW between OLD and HOSP were identified when using Pneu but not when using Hydr. Therefore, a brief FR test protocol using a continuous registration of the strength decay seems to be sufficiently informative in a clinical setting to appraise muscle fatigability, however, only when using a Pneu system.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37276855
pii: 000530227
doi: 10.1159/000530227
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1259-1268

Informations de copyright

© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Auteurs

Liza De Dobbeleer (L)

Gerontology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Frailty in Aging Research (FRIA) Group, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Department of Geriatrics, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.

David Beckwée (D)

Gerontology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Frailty in Aging Research (FRIA) Group, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Campus Drie Eiken, Wilrijk, Belgium.
SOMT University of Physiotherapy, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Rehabilitation Sciences Research Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.

Pauline Arnold (P)

Gerontology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Frailty in Aging Research (FRIA) Group, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
SOMT University of Physiotherapy, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.

Stéphane Baudry (S)

Laboratory of Applied Biology, Research Unit in Applied Neurophysiology (LAB Neuro), Faculté des Sciences de la Motricité, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.

Ingo Beyer (I)

Gerontology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Frailty in Aging Research (FRIA) Group, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Department of Geriatrics, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.

Jeroen Demarteau (J)

Gerontology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Frailty in Aging Research (FRIA) Group, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
SOMT University of Physiotherapy, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.

Siddhartha Lieten (S)

Gerontology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Frailty in Aging Research (FRIA) Group, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Department of Geriatrics, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.

Ynes Punie (Y)

SOMT University of Physiotherapy, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.

Ivan Bautmans (I)

Gerontology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Frailty in Aging Research (FRIA) Group, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Department of Geriatrics, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
SOMT University of Physiotherapy, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH