Abstract
Sensorimotor testing is used to measure outcomes in surgery, to document results of treatment and rehabilitation, and to compare results between surgeons, therapists, and institutions. When performing sensorimotor testing, failure to address dominant side differences may cause a bias in evaluation of outcomes. This study evaluated the effect of hand dominance on outcomes testing performed on patients following surgery for distal radius fractures (DRF). We hypothesized that the injured dominant hand will perform differently than the injured non-dominant hand. This is a retrospective study of patients following DRF treated surgically and evaluated in therapy. The patients were evaluated at fixed intervals: initially, at 6 weeks, and at 3 months post-surgery. Testing included grip strength, monofilaments, static and moving 2-point discrimination, Moberg testing, and stereognosis. Sixty patients included 46 (76.6%) females. Age averaged 62.1 (standard deviation: 16.9) years, and 54 were right-handed (90%). There were differences between dominant and non-dominant hand injury in 2 of 9 tests of sensibility for each time period, including little finger monofilament and Moberg testing initially, and moving 2-point discrimination in the little finger, monofilament testing of the thumb at 3 months. Both groups improved between initial and 3-month evaluation without differences in amount of improvement. Despite some significant differences in the applied tests between dominant and non-dominant injured hands, our results do not support correction for hand-dominance when using the described examinations in evaluating outcomes following DRF surgery.