P18
EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL OF CLINICAL EXAMINATION METHODS TO REPLACE INSTRUMENTAL DIAGNOSTICS FOR UPPER LIMB SOFT TISSUE: INSIGHTS FROM A LATVIAN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PILOT STUDY
M. Burcena, M. Kivleniece, S. Skrastina,J. Reste
Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia
Background:
The high incidence of upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in Latvia, with over 290 occupational disease cases per 100,000 people in 2021, underscores a need for effective diagnostic approaches. Current challenges include the inefficiency of compulsory medical examinations in preventing workforce attrition due to these disorders.
Objective:
This study explores different arm muscle examination techniques, aiming to find synergies and correlations among these methods. Acknowledging the initial insights that reveal a nuanced discord between clinical evaluations and surface electromyography (sEMG) readings, it seeks to find a diagnostic framework that complements traditional methods.
Methods:
17 healthy volunteers were subjected to clinical examination, dynamometry, sEMG, and infrared thermography – to evaluate six pairs of upper limb muscles (deltoids, biceps, triceps, brachioradialis, wrist flexors and extensors). Analytical processing was conducted using IBM SPSS 27.
Results:
Discrepancies were observed between clinical muscle strength assessments and sEMG readings, particularly with the right wrist extensors. While significant correlations between muscle strength, as measured by dynamometry, and BMI were noted (p < 0.05), these did not consistently align with sEMG data across all muscle groups. Additionally, thermography’s ability to identify trigger points, suggests a nuanced approach to diagnosing musculoskeletal issues.
Conclusion:
The study underscores the complexity of relying solely on clinical examinations to detect upper limb musculoskeletal disorders. It suggests a synergistic approach, integrating manual and instrumental diagnostics, to enhance the accuracy of occupational health assessments. These findings highlight the necessity for ongoing research to refine diagnostic protocols.
References:
1) Vanadziņš, I., Akūlova, L., Paegle, L., Venžega, K., Lakiša, S., Jakimova, D., Kaņējeva, S., Goško,
D., Libora, I., Gutoviča, O., Reinsons, J., Mūrniece, E., Pļavinska, E., Orehova, A., Liepiņa, I.,
Indriksone, A., & Cvetkova, J. (2023). Pētījuma “Darba apstākļi un riski Latvijā 2019–2021”
Gala Ziņojums. https://doi.org/10.25143/darl-lv-2023
