The Hypothesis of Overwork Weakness in Charcot-marie-tooth: A Critical Evaluation

M Pomeren*, Ruud Selles, Berbke Ginneken, Ton Schreuders, Wim Janssen, Henk Stam

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

24 Citations (Scopus)
12 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objective: It has been reported that the non-dominant hand of patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease is stronger than the dominant hand as a result of overwork weakness. The objective of this study was to determine if this hypothesis could be verified in our population.Design: Survey.Subjects: Twenty-eight patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type I or II from a rehabilitation department of a university hospital in the Netherlands.Methods: The strength of 3 intrinsic muscle groups of the dominant and non-dominant hand were determined using the Medical Research Council scale and the Rotterdam Intrinsic Hand Myometer. Furthermore, grip strength, pinch and key grip strength were measured.Results: We found no differences in muscle strength for the dominant and non-dominant hand, except for a stronger key grip strength of the dominant hand in patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type II.Conclusion: In our population, the dominant hand of patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type I and II was equally strong as the non-dominant hand, suggesting that there is no presence of overwork weakness in the dominant hand in our group of patients. This implies that patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease do not have to limit the use of their hands in daily life in order to prevent muscle strength loss.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)32-34
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume41
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2009

Research programs

  • EMC MUSC-01-46-01
  • EMC NIHES-01-50-01-A

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Hypothesis of Overwork Weakness in Charcot-marie-tooth: A Critical Evaluation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this