AN ANALYZING STUDY OF PAIN AND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE UPPER EXTREMITIES IN DIFFERENT OCCUPATIONS

Year 2004, Issue: 007, 13 - 26, 15.12.2004

Uğur Cavlak Ali Kitiş Bilge Çalık

Abstract

Abstract. The aim of this study was to assess of pain and upper extremity functional status in total 350 subjects, which consist bank employees, tailors, barbers. coiffeures. installers, waiters and drivers. In assessment, working duration in years, weekly working time, and daily working time, lack of continuity about work and lack of continuity in last 7 days about pain were recorded. Visual analoque scale (VAS) was used to assessment of pain depending work. A questionnaire, disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand questionaire (DASH- T), was used so . as to describe upper extremity problems and functional status. Working time. was calculated as maximum 6,60 days (weekly) and daily working time (12.64 hours) was maximum in coiffeures. Working duration in occupation mean value was 28.86 years 111 tailors. In determining of pain localisation, the shoulder was the painliest region with the rate of 32 % in all subjects. The lack of continuity in last 12 months was significant in installers and bank employees (p<0,05). But, no significant differences were in all occupations (p<O.OS).. It was found that the significant difference in bank employees and the other ocupauon groups about the musculoskeletal problems in last 7 days at work (p<O,OOI).· In determining of DASH-T questionnaire results, a significant difference was found regarding the bank employees-and the installers (p<O,OOI). The results of the study demonstrated that the improper working schedule and insufficiently resting time lead to musculoskeletal pain. which shows same localisation and same characteristics. In the same time .the pain affects fleglluvely>the functional status and activities of daily living (AOL) of the workers who were included in this study.

Keywords

Pain, Functional Assessment, Occupational Problems, Upper Extremity

FARKLI MESLEK GRUPLARINDA AĞRI ANALİZİ VE ÜST EKSTREMİTELERİN FONKSİYONEL DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

Abstract

Bu cahsmada, garson, tesisatci, berber, kuafor, terzi, sofor ve bankacilardan olusrnus yedi meslek grubundan toplam 350 cahsan uzerinde agn analizi yapmak ve list ekstremite fonksiyonelligini degerlendirmek amaclanrrusnr. Degerlendirmede calrsanlara ait cahsma suresi yil olarak kaydedilirken, haftahk cahsma gunu, gunluk calisma saati, cahsmaya iliskin devamsizhk yaprp yaprnadrgi ve cahsarun agnya iliskin semptomlar nedeniyle son 7 gun icinde kac gun devamsizhk yapngi sorgulanrrusnr. Bunlara ilave olarak, calrsanlann boyun, omuz, kol, onkol, el ve parrnaklardaki agnya iliskin agn analizleri vizuel analog skala (VAS) kullamlarak degerlendirilrnistir. Aynca cahsmaya bagh olarak ortaya cikan kol, omuz ve el sorunlan DASH- T anketi (Disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire) ile sorgulanrrusnr, Meslek gruplan arasmda haftahk cahsma suresi 6,60 gun ve gunluk cahsma suresi 12,64 saat ile en fazla kuaforlerde saptannusnr. Meslekte calisma suresi 28,86 yil ile en fazla terzilerde bulunmustur, Agn !okalizasyonu incelendiginde turn olgularda omuz bolgesi %32 ile en fazla agn hissedilen bolge olarak saptanrrusnr, Son 12 ayda ise devam edemezlik ifadesi tesisatci ve bankacilarda istatistiksel olarak anlarnh bulunrnustur (p<O,05). Bu sure icindeki devamsizhk suresi yonunden meslek gruplan arasmda anlarnh bir iliskiye rastlanmarrusnr (p>0,05). Son 7 gunde duyulan herhangi bir kas-iskelet sistemi rahatsizhgma iliskin sorgulama sonuclannda ise bankacilarla diger meslek gruplan arasmda ileri derecede anlarnh bir farkhhk bulunmustur (p<O,OOI). Ankete kaulan meslek gruplan icinde DASH-T anketi sonuclan bankaci ve tesisatcilarda ileri derecede anlamh olarak farkh bulunrnustur (p<O,OOI). Cahsrna sonuclan, uygun olmayan ve yetersiz dinlenme aralan ile duzenlenrnis bir cahsma prograrrunm farkh meslek gruplannda benzer lokalizasyon gosteren ve benzer ozelliklerde kas-iskelet agnlanna yol acngrru ve gunluk yasam aktivitelerindeki (GY A) fonksiyonel durumu olumsuz etkiledigini gosterrnistir.

Keywords

Agn, Fonksiyonel Degerlendirme, Mesleki Problemler, Ust Ekstremite

References

• [1] Bullock, M.I., 1990, Ergonomics. The physiotherapist in the workplace. Churchill Livingstone. Edinburgh. 51-231.
• [2] Faucett, J. and McCarthy, D., 2003, Chronic pain in the workplace. Nurs Clin North Am. 38: 509-523.
• [3] Andersen, J.H., Kaergaard, A., Mikkelsen, S, Jensen, U.F., Frost, P., Bonde, J.P., Fallentin, N. and Thomsen, J. F., 2003, Risk factors in the onset of neck/shoulder pain in a prospective study of workers in industrial and service companies. Occup Environ Med. 60: 649-654.
• [4] Aaras, A. and Wesrgaard, R.H., 1988, Postural angles as an indicator of postural load an muscular injury in occupational work situations. Ergonomics.31: 915-933.
• [5] Feuerstein, M., Shaw, W.S., Lincoln, A.E., Miller, V.I. and Wood, P.M, 2003, Clinical and worlplace factors associated with a return to modified duty in work-related upper extremity disorders. Pain. 102(1-2): 51-61.
• [6] Selander, J., Marnetoft, S.u., Bergroth, A. and Ekholm J., 2002, Return to work following vocational rehabilitation for neck, back and shoulder problems: risk factors reviewed. Disabil Rehabil. 24: 704-712.
• [7] Buckle, P.W. and Devereux, J.J., 2002, The nature of work related neck and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders. Appl Ergon. 33: 207-217.
• [8] Huskisson, E.C., 1983, Visual analoque scales. In: Melzack R (ed.). Pain management ad assessment. Rosen Press, New York. 33-37.
• [9] Cailliet, R., 1996, Pain: Mechanisms, Assessment, and Management. In: Soft Tissue Pain and Disability .. Edition 3. F.A. Davis Company, Philadelphia. 14-59.
• [10] SooHoo, N.F., McDonald, A. P., Seiler, J. G., 2002, Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SH- 36 J Hand Surgery. 27: 537-41.
• [11] Senocak, M., 1990, Temel Biyoistatistik. C;aglayan Kitabevi, istanbul.
• [12] LaDou, J., 2003, International occupational health. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 206: 303-13.
• [13] Hagberg, M., 1989, Occupational musculoskeletal stress and disorders of the neck and shoulder: a review of possible pathophysiology. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 53: 269-278.
• [14] Kilborn, A. and Persson J., 1987, Work technique and its consequences for musculoskeletal disorders. Ergonomics, 30, 2: 273-279.
• [15] Harms- Ringdahl, K., 1986, An assessment of shoulder exercise and load elicited pain in the cervical spine. Scand J ofReh Med, Supp. 14.
• [16] Schuldt, K, Ekholm, 1., Harms- Ringdahl, K, Nemeth, G. and Arborelius u., 1986, Effects of changes in sitting work posture upon level of static neck and shoulder muscle activity. Ergonomics. 29: 1525-1537.
• [17] Kuorinka, 1. and Koskinen, P., 1979, Occupational rheumatic diseases and upper limb strain in manual jobs in a light mechanical industry. Scand 1 Work Environ& Health, 5, Supp. 3: 39-47.
• [18] Schuind, EA, Mouraux, D., Robert, c., Brassinne, E., Remy, P., Salvia, P., Meyer, A, Moulart, E, Burny, F., 2003, Functional and outcome evaluation of the hand and wrist. Hand Clin. 19:361-9.
• [19] SooHoo, N.E, McDonald, A.P., Seiler, 1.G. and 3rd, McGillivary, G.R., 2002, Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF-36. 1 Hand Surg [Am]. 27:537-41.
• [20] Beaton, D.E., Katz, 1.N., Fossel, AH., Wright, 1.G., Tarasuk, V. and Bombardier, C., 2001, Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. 1 Hand Ther. 14:128-46.
• [21] Bardley, M., Grahn, B., Ekdahl, C. and Borgquist L., 1996, Musculoskeletal Management, 2: 15-24.
• [22] Melhorn, 1.M., Wilkinson, L. and Riggs, 1.D., 2001, Management of musculoskeletal pain in the workplace. Occup Environ Med. 43(2): 83-93.
• [23] Pentikis, 1., Lopez, M.S. and Thomas, R.E., 2002, Ergonomics evaluation of a government office building. Work. 18: 123-131.
• [24] Palmer, KT., 2003, Regional musculoskeletal conditions: pain inthe forearm, wrist and hand. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 17: 113-35.