Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Hand Dominance and Common Hand Conditions.

Orthopedics 2016 May 2
The goals of this study were to (1) assess how frequently patients present for evaluation of common hand disorders in relation to hand dominance and (2) evaluate the effect of hand dominance on function in patients with these conditions. The authors hypothesized that (1) the majority of patients who seek evaluation would have a condition that affects the dominant hand, and (2) disability scores would be worse if the dominant hand is involved. They retrospectively reviewed the records of consecutive patients who presented for treatment to their institution with unilateral symptoms of 5 common disorders of the hand: carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), de Quervain's tenosynovitis (DEQ), lateral epicondylitis (LE), hand osteoarthritis (OA), and trigger finger (TF). The authors assessed the effect of diagnosis and hand dominance on Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores. The study group comprised 1029 patients (379 men and 650 women) with a mean age of 59.5 years. Ninety percent were right-hand dominant. The dominant and nondominant hands were affected with relatively equal frequency for CTS, DEQ, OA, and TF (range, 45%-53%). Patients with LE had a significantly higher incidence of dominant hand involvement. Men had lower DASH scores than women by an average of 7.9 points, and DASH scores were significantly but slightly higher for the overall group (3.2 points) when the dominant side was affected. Men with LE and women with TF and OA had significantly higher DASH scores when their dominant extremity was affected. Common hand disorders such as CTS, DEQ, OA, and TF affect the dominant and nondominant hands in roughly equivalent proportions, whereas LE is more common on the dominant side. Dominant hand involvement results in significantly worse DASH scores, although the magnitude of this is relatively small. Women have significantly higher DASH scores than men for the conditions evaluated. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(3):e444-e448.].

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app