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

Abstract

Introduction: 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. Methods: 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}). Results: For both systems, we found fair associations between FR_100–50 and FR_100–75 (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). Conclusion: 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.