- Visibility 128 Views
- Downloads 9 Downloads
- DOI 10.18231/j.ijcap.2020.023
-
CrossMark
- Citation
A study of correlation between hand anthropometry and hand grip strength in young adult male population of North India
- Author Details:
-
Rabia Khatoon
-
Munish Khanna *
Introduction
Human hand is a structurally unique part of the upper extremity with a number of bones, joints and muscles acting in a unison. Digits of the hand permit tight grasp which is under control of an elaborate nervous plexus.[1] Appropriate positioning of hand in space allows hand to complete a particular task.[2] Hand grip is grasping of objects and hand grip strength is the forceful flexion of the finger joints with a maximal voluntary force that the subject is able to exert under normal biokinetic conditions.[3] Hand grip strength is an important component of precise and fine motor activities, an indicator and measure of strength of several forearm muscles.[4] Estimation of hand grip strength is of immense importance as it determines the efficacy of different treatment strategies and rehabilitation.[5] A number of factors like age, sex and body size influence the hand grip strength. Additionally, hand grip predicts the muscular strength by determining the bone mineral density and bone area at the hand and forearm site.[6] Earlier studies on the hand grip have indicated the difference between grip strength of right and left handed subjects.[7] Hand grip strength influences optimal grip span in women.[8]
The current study aims to correlate the hand anthropometric indices with the hand grip strength in young adult male subjects.
Materials and Methods
The present study was conducted in the Department of Anatomy, Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mullana, (Ambala) on 200 young male subjects. The subjects were from different parts of north India. Prior informed written consent for the study was obtained from subjects in English and Vernacular. Apparently healthy males in the age group 18-25 years were selected. Subjects with apparent anomalies, inflammation, trauma, deformities and history of surgery of hand were not selected. Subjects with chronic medical illness were also excluded from the study.
Sliding calipers
Dynamometer
In the present study hand length and breadth were measured on both the hands of all the subjects. Hand grip strength of both hands was also measured. All the measurements were taken on the clean and dry hands of the subjects in the following manner:-
The subjects were asked to place the hand in supine position on a table with fingers extended.
The hand dimensions were taken by sliding Vernier ’s Caliper.
The following were the dimensions measured on the subjects:-
Hand Breath (HB): Distance between the most lateral parts on the head of 2nd metacarpal to the most medial point of the head of 5th metacarpal.
Hand length (HL): Distance between midpoints of the distal transverse crease of the wrist to the most anterior projection of the skin of the middle finger.
Hand index (HI): Hand breadth / Hand length × 100.
Method for measuring hand grip strength
Hand dynamometer made by fabrication enterprises, NY 10533 U.S.A., was used to measure the grip strength of all the subjects. Each subject was made to sit on a chair with elbow flexed at 90 degrees and the forearm in semi- pronation lying on an arm rest. The subjects were asked to squeeze the dynamometer with their hand and grip strength was recorded (kg).
Anthrppometric index:
Hand index (HI):Hand breadthHand lengthX 100
Statistical analysis
All the data was compiled and entered in Microsoft Excel worksheet as master chart.
The data was statistically analyzed (arithmetic mean and standard deviation will be calculated) and tabulated.
Result
The mean age of males in the present study was 20.31± 2.03 years. Hand dimensions of the subjects like hand length & breadth were measured and hand index was calculated for both sides; minimum and maximum readings were noted and mean calculated along with standard deviation ([Table 1]).
Index and ring finger length were measured for both sides; minimum and maximum readings were recorded and mean calculated ([Table 2]).
[Table 3] shows left hand anthropometric parameters like hand length, hand breath and hand index among the subjects. The minimum and maximum values for hand length, hand breadth and hand index are given in the table; their respective mean and standard deviation.
[Table 4] shows Right hand anthropometric indices like hand length, hand breadth and hand index along with their respective means and standard deviations; all measurements were in cm.
[Table 5] shows the comparison of various anthropometric parameters of both hands of the subjects. Mean value of hand breadth, hand index and ring finger length was seen higher in right hand of male students while hand length and index finger length was found higher in left hand of male students.
[Table 6] shows the comparison of hand grip strength among right and left hand of male students. The mean value of right hand grip strength was higher as compared to left hand grip strength in male students. The difference was statistically significant (p value=0.006).
The [Table 7] shows the correlation of hand grip strength with the anthropometric parameters of both the hands in males. A positive correlation was found between the hand grip strength and all the hand parameters of both the hands in males (p ≤ 0.05) except for the left ring finger length.
[Table 8] shows the regression equation for calculation of hand grip strength in males from the values of different hand parameters. In the [Table 8] y stands for the hand grip strength and x stands for the particular hand measurement.
[Table 9] shows the regression equation for the calculation of age of males from the various hand anthropometric measurements of male students. In the [Table 9] y stands of the age of the individual and x stands for the particular hand measurement.
| Variables | Minimum | Maximum | Mean ± SD | |
| Hand length(cm) | Right | 16.45 | 22.46 | 19.28±1.06 |
| Left | 16.94 | 23.71 | 19.29±1.09 | |
| Hand breadth(cm) | Right | 6.22 | 10.07 | 8.50±0.57 |
| Left | 6.94 | 10.45 | 8.47±0.64 | |
| Hand index | Right | 34.92 | 55.13 | 44.23±3.10 |
| Left | 36.30 | 52.45 | 43.97±2.97 |
| Variables | Minimum | Maximum | Mean ± SD | |
| Index finger length (cm) | Right | 6.36 | 8.91 | 7.52 ± 0.43 |
| Left | 6.09 | 9.33 | 7.55 ± 0.50 | |
| Ring finger length (cm) | Right | 5.43 | 8.93 | 7.74 ± 0.61 |
| Left | 6.32 | 9.12 | 7.65 ± 0.62 |
| Left Hand Variable | Minimum (in cm) | Maximum (in cm) | Mean ± SD (incm) |
| Hand Length | 16.94 | 23.71 | 19.29 ± 1.09 |
| Hand breadth | 6.94 | 10.45 | 8.47 ± 0.64 |
| Hand Index | 36.30 | 52.45 | 43.97 ± 2.97 |
| Right Hand Variable | Minimum (in cm) | Maximum (in cm) | Mean ± SD (in cm) |
| Hand Length | 16.45 | 22.46 | 19.28 ± 1.06 |
| Hand breadth | 6.22 | 10.07 | 8.50 ± 0.57 |
| Hand Index | 34.92 | 55.13 | 44.23 ± 3.10 |
| Variables | Minimum | Maximum | Mean ± SD | p-Value | |
| Hand length (cm) | Right | 16.45 | 22.46 | 19.28 ± 1.06 | 0.905 |
| Left | 16.94 | 23.71 | 19.29 ± 1.09 | ||
| Hand breadth (cm) | Right | 6.22 | 10.07 | 8.50 ± 0.57 | 0.558 |
| Left | 6.94 | 10.45 | 8.47 ± 0.64 | ||
| Hand index (cm) | Right | 34.92 | 55.13 | 44.23 ± 3.10 | 0.394 |
| Left | 36.30 | 52.45 | 43.97 ± 2.97 | ||
| Index finger length (cm) | Right | 6.36 | 8.91 | 7.52 ± 0.43 | 0.529 |
| Left | 6.09 | 9.33 | 7.55 ± 0.50 | ||
| Ring finger length (cm) | Right | 5.43 | 8.93 | 7.74 ± 0.61 | 0.144 |
| Left | 6.32 | 9.12 | 7.65 ± 0.62 |
| Variable | Minimum Handgrip Strength | Maximum Handgrip Strength | Mean ± SD | p-Value | |
| Male (N=200) | Right hand | 18.00 | 54.00 | 39.23±7.43 | 0.006* |
| Left hand | 18.66 | 56.00 | 37.21±7.29 | ||
| *p-Value ≤ 0.05 statistically significant |
| Variables | r-Value | p-Value | |
| Hand length | Right | 0.308 | 0.001* |
| Left | 0.319 | 0.001* | |
| Hand breadth | Right | 0.429 | 0.001* |
| Left | 0.381 | 0.001* | |
| Hand index | Right | 0.169 | 0.017* |
| Left | 0.138 | 0.051 | |
| *p-Value ≤ 0.05 statistically significant |
| Variables | Right hand | Left Hand |
| Hand Lengths | y = 2.1534x - 2.2785 | y = 2.1311x - 3.8916 |
| Hand Breadth | y = 5.5757x - 8.184 | y = 4.356x + 0.3272 |
| Hand Index | y = 0.4048x + 21.329 | y = 0.3383x + 22.342 |
| Variables | Right hand | Left Hand |
| Hand Lengths | y = 0.0159x + 20.009 | y = 0.1726x + 16.986 |
| Hand Breadth | y = 0.5160x + 15.927 | y = 0.7405x + 14.045 |
| Hand Index | y = 0.0836x + 16.619 | y = 0.1151x + 15.255 |
| Index Finger Length | y = 0.4706x + 16.777 | y = 0.5389x + 16.247 |
| Ring Finger Length | y = 0.6315x + 15.425 | y = 0.5352x + 16.219 |
| Hand Grip Strength | y = 0.0453x + 18.539 | y = 0.0287x + 19.246 |
| 2D:4D Ratio | y = -0.138x+20.45 | y = -0.055x+20.37 |
| y is the age of individual and x is the particular hand measurement |
| Authors | Population & Region | Age | Sex (No. of subjects) | Mean hand length | |
| RHL | LHL | ||||
| Present study (2017)? | Students, North Indian | 18-25 years | Male (200) | 19.28 | 19.29 |
| Dhawan V et al (2016)9 | Haryana, India | 21-25 | Male (200) | 19.36 | 19.42 |
| Kumar T et al (2015)? | Kashmiri Pandits | 18+ | Male (150) | 18.17 | 18.26 |
| Aboul-Hagag KE et al (2011)10 | Egyptian | 18 | Male (250) | 19.47 | 19.49 |
| Ibeachu PC et al (2011)11 | Port Harcourt Nigeria | 18-30 | M (150) | 19.02 | 19.09 |
| Danborno B et al (2008)? | Nigerian | 18+ | M(250) | 19.85 | 19.93 |
| Authors | Population & Region | Age | Sex & No. of subject | Mean hand breadth | |
| RHB | LHB | ||||
| Present study (2017)? | Students, North Indian | 18-25 years | M (200) | 8.50 | 8.47 |
| Dhawan V et al (2016)9 | Haryanvi, India | 21-25 | M (200) | 8.77 | 8.81 |
| Aboul-Hagag KE et al (2011)10 | Egyptian | 18 | M (250) | 8.13 | 8.14 |
| Ibeachu PC et al (2011)11 | Port Harcourt | 18-30 | M(150) | 8.58 | 8.43 |
| Danborno B et al(2008)? | Nigerian | 18+ | M (250) | 8.90 | 8.68 |
| Authors | Population & Region | Age (years) | Sex & No. of subject | Mean index finger length | |
| RH(cm) | LH(cm) | ||||
| Present study | Students North Indian | 18-25 | M (200) | 7 .52 | 7.55 |
| Sen. J et al (2015)12 | Rajbansi (East India) | 18-60 | M(250) | 6.84 | 6.86 |
| Ibegbu AO et al (2012)1 | Nigerian students | 18years | M(300) | 7.43 | 7.43 |
| Hagag KEA et al (2011)10 | Egyptian | 18 | M (250) | 7.80 | 7.85 |
| Authors | Population & Region | Age | Sex & No. of subject | Mean hand ring finger length | |
| RH | LH | ||||
| Present study | Students North Indian | 18-25 | M (200) | 7.74 | 7.65 |
| Sen. J et al(2015)12 | Rajbansi population | 18-60 | M (250) | 7.05 | 7.13 |
| Ibegbu AO et al (2012)1 | Nigerian students | 18 years | M(300) | 8.03 | 8.03 |
| Hagag KEA et al (2011)10 | Egyptians | 18 years | M (250) | 8.07 | 8.11 |
| Authors | Population & Region | Age | Sex & No. of subject | Mean of the hand grip strength | |
| Right | Left | ||||
| Present study (2017)? | Students North Indian | 18-25 | M (200) | 39.23 | 37.21 |
| Koley S et al. (2006)13 | Punjab India | 18-25 | M | -- | -- |
| Bansode DG et al. (2004)14 | Students Turkey | 18+ | M (76) | 41.62 | |
| Barut C et al. (2008)2 | Players Turkey | 9-18 | M (236) | 23.46 |
Discussion
The present study was undertaken to obtain the baseline data for the various anthropometric parameters of the hand, in young male population of north India. This can serve as a baseline data for the population indicating the nutritional status and their physical activity.[2]
The results of this study were observed to be similar to the various studies done by Dhawan V et al, Kumar T et al, Aboul - Hagag, KE et al, Ibeachu PC et al, Danborno B et al.
Hand breadth measurements for both right and left hand were compared with the measurements of the earlier studies done inside and outside India ([Table 11]). The results of the studies done by Aboul-Hagag KE et al, Ibeachu PC et al, Danborno B et al were similar to the present study. All these studies were done on male subjects and the number of subjects varied from 100 to 250.
Index finger lengths of both the hands were compared with some of the previous studies done in India and abroad. Similar results were observed in the studies done by Sen. J et al, Ibegbu AO et al and Hagag KEA et al.
Dimensions of ring finger of the subjects in the preset study were compared with the similar dimensions of some of the previous studies ([Table 13]). Similar result were observed in the studies done by Sen J et al, Ibegbu AO et al, Hagag- KEA et al.
[Table 14] compares the hand grip strength of the subjects in the present study with some of the earlier studies. The hand grip strength was found more for the right hand as compared to the left hand. The results were statistically significant. The similar results were observed in the studies done by Koley et al, Bansode DG et al, Barut C et al.
Conclusion
The present study gives a baseline data for the anthropometric parameters of the hand like hand length, hand breadth and hand index in young male population of north India. It was observed in the present study that all the hand variables were positively correlated to the hand grip strength. The findings and measurements of the present study were compared with some of the findings of the earlier studies on hand anthropometry and it was concluded that findings of the current study were very much on line with earlier studies.
Source of Funding
None.
Conflict of Interest
None.
References
- Augustine Oseloka Ibegbu, Muhammad Bello Baita, Wilson Oliver Hamman, Umana Uduak Emmanuel, Sunday Abraham Musa. Evaluation of the Relationship between Handgrip Strength with Some Anthropometries among Nigerian Secondary School Students. Anthropol 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Çağatay Barut. Evaluation of hand anthropometric measurements and grip strength in basketball, volleyball and handball players. Int J Experimental Clinical Anat 2008. [Google Scholar]
- E Indira, M Rajeshwari. Correlation of hand grip strength with anthropometric variables and quantifying hand grip strength in children of Age 3-5.5 years with martin vigorimeter in Indian population. Int J Phy Res 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Shyamal Koley, Navdeep Kaur, J.S. Sandhu. A Study on Hand Grip Strength in Female Labourers of Jalandhar, Punjab, India. J Life Sci 2009. [Google Scholar]
- S Koley, Kaur. A study on handgrip strength and some anthropometric variables in younger and older female labourers of Jalandhar. Int J of Bio Anthropo 2008. [Google Scholar]
- S Koley, M K Yadav. An association of hand grip strength with some anthropometric variables in Indian Cricket players. Phy Educ Sport 2009. [Google Scholar]
- N A Incel, E Ceceli, P B Durukan, H R Erdem, Z R Yorgancioglu. Grip strength: Effect of hand dominance. Singapore Med J 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Jonathan Ruiz-Ruiz, Jose L.M. Mesa, Angel Gutiérrez, Manuel J. Castillo. Hand size influences optimal grip span in women but not in men. J Hand Surg 2002. [Google Scholar]
- V Dhawan, Bala Manju, S Galhotra. Sexual dimorphism in hand dimention: An anthropometric study in North India Haryanvi adolescents. Int J Anat Res 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Khaled E. Aboul-Hagag, Soheir A. Mohamed, Maha A. Hilal, Eman A. Mohamed. Determination of sex from hand dimensions and index/ring finger length ratio in Upper Egyptians. Egypt J Forensic Sci 2011. [Google Scholar]
- P C Ibeachu, E C Abu, B C Didia. Anthropometric sexual dimorphism of hand length, breadth and hand indices Uuniversity of port- hart students. Asian J Med Sci 2011. [Google Scholar]
- J Sen, T Kanchan, A Ghosh, N Mandal, K Krishan. Estimation of sex from index and ring finger length in an indigenous population of Eastern India. J Clin Diagnostic Res 2015. [Google Scholar]
- S Koley, M Gandhi, A P Singh. An association of hand grip strength with height, weight, and BMI in boys and girls aged 6-25 years of Amritsar. Internet J Biol Anthropol 2006. [Google Scholar]
- D G Bansode, L J Borse, R D Yadav. Study of correlation between dominant hand’s grip strength and some physical factors in adult males and females. Int J Pharma Res Health Sci 2014. [Google Scholar]