Comparison of Wrist Motion and Grip Strength in a Normal Chinese and Caucasian Population

Comparison of Wrist Motion and Grip Strength between Normal Caucasian, Southern Chinese and Japanese Populations

Background: Differences in structure and function of the hand and wrist between distinct populations affect our approach to treatment, expectations and functional outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare wrist motion and grip strength in Caucasian, Chinese and Japanese populations. Methods: A total of 424 normal wrists were evaluated that included 99 Japanese, 139 Caucasian and 186 Southern Chinese. Demographic information collected included age, gender, hand dominance and occupation. Evaluation included measurement of active motion and grip strength. Motion was measured using a goniometer. Grip strength was evaluated using a JAMAR dynamometer. Demographic information and evaluation was compared among the three cohorts using statistical tests. Multivariate mixed-effect model was further used to assess the racial impact on each evaluation controlling for demographic factors as well as two-hand measurements of everyone. Results: There was no difference in global wrist motion between the cohorts. We did find significant differences between the cohorts in all discrete measurements. Conclusions: Differences in wrist motion and grip strength between normal Japanese, Chinese and Caucasian populations may be due to bony structure rather than soft tissue properties. Knowledge of these disparities can provide references for personalised wrist examination, diagnosis, treatment and comparison of outcomes between different cohorts. Level of Evidence: Level III (Diagnostic).

Revisiting the dogma of the Edinburgh position for safe immobilization

Since the concept was first described 50 years ago in Edinburgh by J. I. P. James, the term 'Edinburgh position' has been synonymous with the position of safe immobilization for the hand. Widely employed for the management of injured hands, the position is associated with splinting the metacarpophalangeal joints at 90° and the proximal interphalangeal joints completely straight, namely, 'the intrinsic-plus position', to help reduce the long-term consequences of a stiff hand. Over the decades, the strict joint angles of the Edinburgh position have been debated due to changes in patterns of injury, treatment and rehabilitation. This article challenges the dogma that surrounds the use of the Edinburgh position in clinical practice. The history of the position was explored, and the results of a survey about current practice of hand immobilization from two study centres in Edinburgh is presented.Level of evidence: IV.