Valoración funcional de pacientes con lesiones del miembro superior a través del cuestionario DASHe
Functional assessment of patients with injuries of the higher member through the DASHe questionnaire
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52379/mcs.v2i3.66Resumen
Introducción: La valoración funcional es esencial en el manejo de los problemas del miembro superior, tanto para la toma de decisiones diagnósticas y terapéuticas como para evaluar la evolución y la efectividad de los tratamientos instaurados. Objetivo: sido valorar la funcionalidad de pacientes con lesiones del miembro superior, pre y post tratamiento. Metodología: estudio observacional, longitudinal, analítico de prevalencia. No probabilístico, a criterio. La población accesible fueron pacientes adultos con lesiones del miembro superior que son tratados en el Servicio de Kinesiología y Fisioterapia entre julio a octubre de 2018. Resultados: 20 pacientes fueron incluidos en la investigación de los cuales el 55% es del sexo masculino. Al inicio de la investigación la puntuación DASHe fue de un minino de 6,7 a 73,6 puntos y una media de 33 ± 22,1 puntos, después del tratamiento aplicado los puntajes oscilaron entre 1,7 y 55 con una media de 17,8 ± 14,6 puntos. Discusión: Como se ha visto la consistencia interna de la adaptación al español es buena, puesto que el alfa de Cronbach indica una muy buena validez. La disminución en la escala DASHe fue estadísticamente significativa.
Palabras clave: Valoración funcional; Kinesiología; Miembro superior
Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Citas
1. Hervás J, Collado MJN, Moreno SP, Pérez JLR, Matéu PL, Tello IM. Versión española del cuestionario DASH. Adaptación transcultural, fiabilidad, validez y sensibilidad a los cambios. Med Clínica. 2006;127(2):441-7. https://doi.org/10.1157/13093053
2. Eggers IM, Mennen U. The EFFUL (Evaluation of Function in the Flail Upper Limb) system. A ranking score system to measure improvement achieved by surgical recon-struction and rehabilitation. J Hand Surg Edinb Scotl. 1997;22(3):388-94. URL.
3. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Up-per Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6%3C602::AID-AJIM4%3E3.0.CO;2-L
4. Turchin DC, Beaton DE, Richards RR. Validity of observer-based aggregate scoring systems as descriptors of elbow pain, function, and disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(2):154-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199802000-00002
5. Navsarikar A, Gladman DD, Husted JA, Cook RJ. Validity assessment of the disabili-ties of arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH) for patients with psoriatic ar-thritis. J Rheumatol. 1999;26(10):2191-4. URL.
6. MacDermid JC, Richards RS, Donner A, Bellamy N, Roth JH. Responsiveness of the short form-36, disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire, patient-rated wrist evaluation, and physical impairment measurements in evaluating recovery after a distal radius fracture. J Hand Surg. 2000;25(2):330-40. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhsu.2000.jhsu25a0330
7. Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. 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. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther. 2001;14(2):128-46. URL.
8. Jain R, Hudak PL, Bowen CV. Validity of health status measures in patients with ul-nar wrist disorders. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther. 2001;14(2):147-53. URL.
9. SooHoo NF, McDonald AP, Seiler JG, McGillivary GR. Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF-36. J Hand Surg. 2002;27(3):537-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/jhsu.2002.32964
10. Gay RE, Amadio PC, Johnson JC. Comparative responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand, the carpal tunnel questionnaire, and the SF-36 to clinical change after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg. 2003;28(2):250-4. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhsu.2003.50043
11. MacDermid JC, Tottenham V. Responsiveness of the disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) and patient-rated wrist/hand evaluation (PRWHE) in evaluating change after hand therapy. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther. 2004;17(1):18-23. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.jht.2003.10.003
12. Greenslade JR, Mehta RL, Belward P, Warwick DJ. Dash and Boston questionnaire assessment of carpal tunnel syndrome outcome: what is the responsiveness of an out-come questionnaire? J Hand Surg Edinb Scotl. 2004;29(2):159-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsb.2003.10.010
13. Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(10):1008-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.02.007
14. Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Question-naire and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire in carpal tun-nel surgery. J Hand Surg. 2005;30(1):81-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.10.006
15. Hobby JL, Watts C, Elliot D. Validity and responsiveness of the patient evaluation measure as an outcome measure for carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Edinb Scotl. 2005;30(4):350-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsb.2005.03.009
16. Hunsaker FG, Cioffi DA, Amadio PC, Wright JG, Caughlin B. The American acade-my of orthopaedic surgeons outcomes instruments: normative values from the general population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(2):208-15. URL.
17. Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Andersson B, Dahlgren E, Johansson A. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: reliability and validity of the Swedish version evaluated in 176 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71(6):613-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/000164700317362262
18. Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4:11. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2F1471-2474-4-11
19. Dubert T, Voche P, Dumontier C, Dinh A. Le questionnaire DASH. Adaptation fran-çaise d’un outil d’évaluation international. /data/revues/12973203/v0020i04/0100049x/. 2001;20(4):294-302. URL.
20. Durand M-J, Vachon B, Hong QN, Loisel P. The cross-cultural adaptation of the DASH questionnaire in Canadian French. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther. 2005;18(1):34-9. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.jht.2004.10.010
21. Veehof MM, Sleegers EJA, van Veldhoven NHMJ, Schuurman AH, van Meeteren NLU. Psychometric qualities of the Dutch language version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH-DLV). J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther. 2002;15(4):347-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0894-1130(02)80006-0
22. De Smet L. Responsiveness of the DASH score in surgically treated basal joint arthri-tis of the thumb: preliminary results. Clin Rheumatol. 2004;23(3):223-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-004-0866-y
23. Offenbächer M, Ewert T, Sangha O, Stucki G. Validation of a German version of the «Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand» questionnaire (DASH-G). Z Rheumatol. 2003;62(2):168-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00393-003-0461-7
24. Germann G, Harth A, Wind G, Demir E. [Standardisation and validation of the Ger-man version 2.0 of the Disability of Arm, Shoulder,Hand (DASH) questionnaire]. Un-fallchirurg. 2003;106(1):13-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-002-0456-x
25. Padua R, Padua L, Ceccarelli E, Romanini E, Zanoli G, Amadio PC, et al. Italian ver-sion of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation. J Hand Surg Edinb Scotl. 2003;28(2):179-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0266-7681(02)00303-0
26. Lee EWC, Lau JSY, Chung MMH, Li APS, Lo SK. Evaluation of the Chinese version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH-HKPWH): cross-cultural ad-aptation process, internal consistency and reliability study. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther. 2004;17(4):417-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1197/j.jht.2004.07.005
27. Lee EWC, Chung MMH, Li APS, Lo SK. Construct validity of the Chinese version of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (DASH-HKPWH). J Hand Surg Edinb Scotl. 2005;30(1):29-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsb.2004.09.010
28. Orfale AG, Araújo PMP, Ferraz MB, Natour J. Translation into Brazilian Portuguese, cultural adaptation and evaluation of the reliability of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire. Braz J Med Biol Res Rev Bras Pesqui Medicas E Biol. 2005;38(2):293-302. https://doi.org//S0100-879X2005000200018
29. Gevorgyan A, Abrahamyan DO, Yaghjyan GV. Translation and Cross-Cultural Adap-tation of the Eastern Armenian and Russian Versions of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Outcome Measure. J Hand Surg. 2006;31(9):1550-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.08.006
30. Imaeda T, Toh S, Nakao Y, Nishida J, Hirata H, Ijichi M, et al. Validation of the Japa-nese Society for Surgery of the Hand version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire. J Orthop Sci Off J Jpn Orthop Assoc. 2005;10(4):353-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-005-0917-5
31. Rosales RS, Delgado EB, Díez de la Lastra-Bosch I. Evaluation of the Spanish version of the DASH and carpal tunnel syndrome health-related quality-of-life instruments: cross-cultural adaptation process and reliability. J Hand Surg. 2002;27(2):334-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/jhsu.2002.30059
32. Tosetto A, Testa S, Martinelli I, Poli D, Cosmi B, Lodigiani C, et al. External valida-tion of the DASH prediction rule: a retrospective cohort study. J Thromb Haemost. 2017;15(10):1963-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.13781
33. Izawa KP, Kasahara Y, Hiraki K, Hirano Y, Watanabe S. Relation between the Disa-bility of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score and Muscle Strength in Post-Cardiac Sur-gery Patients. Diseases. 2017;5(4):31. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390%2Fdiseases5040031
34. Björnsson Hallgren HC, Adolfsson LE, Johansson K, Öberg B, Peterson A, Holmgren TM. Specific exercises for subacromial pain. Acta Orthop. 2017;88(6):600-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F17453674.2017.1364069
35. Sayegh ET, Strauch RJ. Does Nonsurgical Treatment Improve Longitudinal Outcomes of Lateral Epicondylitis Over No Treatment? A Meta-analysis. Clin Orthop. 2015;473(3):1093-107. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11999-014-4022-y
2. Eggers IM, Mennen U. The EFFUL (Evaluation of Function in the Flail Upper Limb) system. A ranking score system to measure improvement achieved by surgical recon-struction and rehabilitation. J Hand Surg Edinb Scotl. 1997;22(3):388-94. URL.
3. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Up-per Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6%3C602::AID-AJIM4%3E3.0.CO;2-L
4. Turchin DC, Beaton DE, Richards RR. Validity of observer-based aggregate scoring systems as descriptors of elbow pain, function, and disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(2):154-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199802000-00002
5. Navsarikar A, Gladman DD, Husted JA, Cook RJ. Validity assessment of the disabili-ties of arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH) for patients with psoriatic ar-thritis. J Rheumatol. 1999;26(10):2191-4. URL.
6. MacDermid JC, Richards RS, Donner A, Bellamy N, Roth JH. Responsiveness of the short form-36, disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire, patient-rated wrist evaluation, and physical impairment measurements in evaluating recovery after a distal radius fracture. J Hand Surg. 2000;25(2):330-40. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhsu.2000.jhsu25a0330
7. Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. 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. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther. 2001;14(2):128-46. URL.
8. Jain R, Hudak PL, Bowen CV. Validity of health status measures in patients with ul-nar wrist disorders. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther. 2001;14(2):147-53. URL.
9. SooHoo NF, McDonald AP, Seiler JG, McGillivary GR. Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF-36. J Hand Surg. 2002;27(3):537-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/jhsu.2002.32964
10. Gay RE, Amadio PC, Johnson JC. Comparative responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand, the carpal tunnel questionnaire, and the SF-36 to clinical change after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg. 2003;28(2):250-4. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhsu.2003.50043
11. MacDermid JC, Tottenham V. Responsiveness of the disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) and patient-rated wrist/hand evaluation (PRWHE) in evaluating change after hand therapy. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther. 2004;17(1):18-23. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.jht.2003.10.003
12. Greenslade JR, Mehta RL, Belward P, Warwick DJ. Dash and Boston questionnaire assessment of carpal tunnel syndrome outcome: what is the responsiveness of an out-come questionnaire? J Hand Surg Edinb Scotl. 2004;29(2):159-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsb.2003.10.010
13. Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(10):1008-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.02.007
14. Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Question-naire and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire in carpal tun-nel surgery. J Hand Surg. 2005;30(1):81-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.10.006
15. Hobby JL, Watts C, Elliot D. Validity and responsiveness of the patient evaluation measure as an outcome measure for carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Edinb Scotl. 2005;30(4):350-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsb.2005.03.009
16. Hunsaker FG, Cioffi DA, Amadio PC, Wright JG, Caughlin B. The American acade-my of orthopaedic surgeons outcomes instruments: normative values from the general population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(2):208-15. URL.
17. Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Andersson B, Dahlgren E, Johansson A. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: reliability and validity of the Swedish version evaluated in 176 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71(6):613-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/000164700317362262
18. Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4:11. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2F1471-2474-4-11
19. Dubert T, Voche P, Dumontier C, Dinh A. Le questionnaire DASH. Adaptation fran-çaise d’un outil d’évaluation international. /data/revues/12973203/v0020i04/0100049x/. 2001;20(4):294-302. URL.
20. Durand M-J, Vachon B, Hong QN, Loisel P. The cross-cultural adaptation of the DASH questionnaire in Canadian French. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther. 2005;18(1):34-9. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.jht.2004.10.010
21. Veehof MM, Sleegers EJA, van Veldhoven NHMJ, Schuurman AH, van Meeteren NLU. Psychometric qualities of the Dutch language version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH-DLV). J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther. 2002;15(4):347-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0894-1130(02)80006-0
22. De Smet L. Responsiveness of the DASH score in surgically treated basal joint arthri-tis of the thumb: preliminary results. Clin Rheumatol. 2004;23(3):223-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-004-0866-y
23. Offenbächer M, Ewert T, Sangha O, Stucki G. Validation of a German version of the «Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand» questionnaire (DASH-G). Z Rheumatol. 2003;62(2):168-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00393-003-0461-7
24. Germann G, Harth A, Wind G, Demir E. [Standardisation and validation of the Ger-man version 2.0 of the Disability of Arm, Shoulder,Hand (DASH) questionnaire]. Un-fallchirurg. 2003;106(1):13-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-002-0456-x
25. Padua R, Padua L, Ceccarelli E, Romanini E, Zanoli G, Amadio PC, et al. Italian ver-sion of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation. J Hand Surg Edinb Scotl. 2003;28(2):179-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0266-7681(02)00303-0
26. Lee EWC, Lau JSY, Chung MMH, Li APS, Lo SK. Evaluation of the Chinese version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH-HKPWH): cross-cultural ad-aptation process, internal consistency and reliability study. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther. 2004;17(4):417-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1197/j.jht.2004.07.005
27. Lee EWC, Chung MMH, Li APS, Lo SK. Construct validity of the Chinese version of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (DASH-HKPWH). J Hand Surg Edinb Scotl. 2005;30(1):29-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsb.2004.09.010
28. Orfale AG, Araújo PMP, Ferraz MB, Natour J. Translation into Brazilian Portuguese, cultural adaptation and evaluation of the reliability of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire. Braz J Med Biol Res Rev Bras Pesqui Medicas E Biol. 2005;38(2):293-302. https://doi.org//S0100-879X2005000200018
29. Gevorgyan A, Abrahamyan DO, Yaghjyan GV. Translation and Cross-Cultural Adap-tation of the Eastern Armenian and Russian Versions of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Outcome Measure. J Hand Surg. 2006;31(9):1550-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.08.006
30. Imaeda T, Toh S, Nakao Y, Nishida J, Hirata H, Ijichi M, et al. Validation of the Japa-nese Society for Surgery of the Hand version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire. J Orthop Sci Off J Jpn Orthop Assoc. 2005;10(4):353-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-005-0917-5
31. Rosales RS, Delgado EB, Díez de la Lastra-Bosch I. Evaluation of the Spanish version of the DASH and carpal tunnel syndrome health-related quality-of-life instruments: cross-cultural adaptation process and reliability. J Hand Surg. 2002;27(2):334-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/jhsu.2002.30059
32. Tosetto A, Testa S, Martinelli I, Poli D, Cosmi B, Lodigiani C, et al. External valida-tion of the DASH prediction rule: a retrospective cohort study. J Thromb Haemost. 2017;15(10):1963-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.13781
33. Izawa KP, Kasahara Y, Hiraki K, Hirano Y, Watanabe S. Relation between the Disa-bility of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score and Muscle Strength in Post-Cardiac Sur-gery Patients. Diseases. 2017;5(4):31. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390%2Fdiseases5040031
34. Björnsson Hallgren HC, Adolfsson LE, Johansson K, Öberg B, Peterson A, Holmgren TM. Specific exercises for subacromial pain. Acta Orthop. 2017;88(6):600-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F17453674.2017.1364069
35. Sayegh ET, Strauch RJ. Does Nonsurgical Treatment Improve Longitudinal Outcomes of Lateral Epicondylitis Over No Treatment? A Meta-analysis. Clin Orthop. 2015;473(3):1093-107. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11999-014-4022-y
Descargas
Publicado
31-12-2018
Número
Sección
Artículos Originales
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2018 Marcos Almirón, Iván Barrios
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
