Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Plast Surg 2024; 57(04): 248-255
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1788593
Original Article

The Normal Active Range of Motion of the Index, Middle, Ring, and Little Fingers in a Sample of Indian Population

Mohamed Ibrahim B.K 
1   Institute of Craniofacial and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, SIMS Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
P. Umar Farooq Baba 
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences , Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
,
Veena Singh 
3   Department of Plastic Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
,
Ankur Karanjkar 
4   Department of Plastic Surgery, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
,
Latha Madhavan
1   Institute of Craniofacial and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, SIMS Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Raheeb Ahmad Shah
5   Department of Plastic Surgery, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
,
Ansarul Haq 
3   Department of Plastic Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
,
Manoj Pawar 
4   Department of Plastic Surgery, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
,
Anupama Kumari
3   Department of Plastic Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
,
Nikhil Panse
4   Department of Plastic Surgery, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
,
Vishnubabu G.
1   Institute of Craniofacial and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, SIMS Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Shyamnath Krishna Pandian
1   Institute of Craniofacial and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, SIMS Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Anirudha Sharma 
1   Institute of Craniofacial and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, SIMS Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Rajagopalan Krishnamoorthy
1   Institute of Craniofacial and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, SIMS Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Mukund Thatte
6   Department of Plastic Surgery, Bombay Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Anil Bhat
7   Department of Hand Surgery, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India
,
Sridhar Krishnamoorthy
1   Institute of Craniofacial and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, SIMS Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The normative data for finger range of motion (ROM) are not available for the Indian population. The aim of our study was to measure the active ROM of finger joints in normal healthy volunteers in a sample of Indian population.

Materials and Methods This is a prospective observational study conducted as a part of the Indian normative data project of the Indian Society for Surgery of the Hand (ISSH). The study included one participating center from four geographical regions of the country. Certified goniometers were used to measure the ROM of fingers in all centers. A standardized methodology was devised. A pilot study was done to assess the interobserver and intraobserver reliability, following which data were collected by one measurement.

Results This pilot study was performed in 20 hands that showed good interobserver and intraobserver reliability correlation. A total of 390 hands were measured in four participating centers. Active flexion of metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint was the highest in the middle finger (86.6 ± 10.4 degrees) followed by the index finger (86.0 ± 9.2 degrees), little finger (85.0 ± 8.4 degrees), and ring finger (84.2 ± 8.6 degrees). The index finger (97.2 ± 16.9 degrees) showed maximum proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint flexion followed by the middle finger (96.2 ± 15.8 degrees), ring finger (96.0 ± 15.9 degrees), and little finger (91.8 ± 12.7 degrees). Distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint flexion increased from the index finger (81.6 ± 13.9 degrees) to the little finger (84.6 ± 12.9 degrees). The little finger MCP joint (26.3 ± 6.2 degrees) showed maximum extension followed by the index finger (25.7 ± 6.8 degrees), middle finger (24.7 ± 6.7 degrees) and ring finger (22.3 ± 7.1 degrees). The middle finger (15.6 ± 8.1 degrees) and ring finger (16.2 ± 8 degrees) had more PIP joint extension when compared to the index (13.7 ± 7.8 degrees) and little finger (13.2 ± 8.4 degrees). The ring finger (8.1 ± 6.8 degrees) and the middle finger (8.4 ± 6.9 degrees) had more DIP joint extension when compared with the index finger (6.0 ± 6.0 degrees) and the little finger (6.8 ± 6.7 degrees). Total active motion (TAM) of the middle finger (315.9 ± 31.0 degrees) was the maximum followed by the index finger (310.2 ± 27.3 degrees), ring finger (308.8 ± 29.1 degrees), and little finger (307.8 ± 25.2 degrees). Gender, body mass index (BMI), mother tongue, geographical location, and occupation were factors that had significant correlation, while no significant differences based on side, hand dominance, and age were noted.

Conclusion We have reported normative data of finger ROM and TAM for the index, middle, ring, and little fingers in the Indian population. Finger ROM in the Indian population is highly variable. The observed TAM in the Indian population is higher than what is reported earlier.

Keywords

finger range of motion - Indian normative data - total active motion

Note

Institutional review board clearance was obtained for the study individually at the four participating centers where the study was performed and the study protocols conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki.




Publication History

Article published online:
01 August 2024

© 2024. Association of Plastic Surgeons of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Joint Motion: Method of Measuring and Recording. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1965
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Greene WB, Heckman JD. eds. The Clinical Measurement of Joint Motion. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1994
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Cocchiarella L, Andersson G. American Medical Association. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Chicago, IL: American Medical Publishing Association Press; 2001
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 International Federation of Societies for Surgery of the Hand. Atlas of surface anatomy and joint motion. In: Leslie I. ed. IFSSH Terminology for Hand Surgery. 4th ed.. Philadelphia, PA: Harcourt Health Sciences; 2001: 38-56
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Eatonhand.com. Normal range of motion reference values. Accessed October 2, 2021 at: https://www.eatonhand.com/nor/nor002.htm
  • 6 Kapandji IA. The Physiology of the Joints. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1981: 156-173
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Mallon WJ, Brown HR, Nunley JA. Digital ranges of motion: normal values in young adults. J Hand Surg Am 1991; 16 (05) 882-887
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Skvarilová B, Plevková A. Ranges of joint motion of the adult hand. Acta Chir Plast 1996; 38 (02) 67-71
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Smahel Z, Klímová A. The influence of age and exercise on the mobility of hand joints: 1: metacarpophalangeal joints of the three-phalangeal fingers. Acta Chir Plast 2004; 46 (03) 81-88
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Ellis B, Bruton A, Goddard JR. Joint angle measurement: a comparative study of the reliability of goniometry and wire tracing for the hand. Clin Rehabil 1997; 11 (04) 314-320
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Burr N, Pratt AL, Stott D. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability when measuring interphalangeal joints. Physiotherapy 2003; 89 (11) 641-652
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Lewis E, Fors L, Tharion WJ. Interrater and intrarater reliability of finger goniometric measurements. Am J Occup Ther 2010; 64 (04) 555-561
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Macionis V. Reliability of the standard goniometry and diagrammatic recording of finger joint angles: a comparative study with healthy subjects and non-professional raters. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14 (01) 17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 American Society of Hand Therapists. Clinical Assessment Recommendations. 2nd ed.. Mount Laurel, NJ: American Society of Hand Therapist; 1992
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Bear-Lehman J, Abreu BC. Evaluating the hand: issues in reliability and validity. Phys Ther 1989; 69 (12) 1025-1033
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 De Smet L, Urlus M, Spriet A, Fabry G. Metacarpophalangeal and interphalangeal flexion of the thumb: influence of sex and age, relation to ligamentous injury. Acta Orthop Belg 1993; 59 (04) 357-359
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Smahel Z, Klímová A. The influence of age and exercise on the mobility of hand joints: 2: interphalangeal joints of the three phalangeal fingers. Acta Chir Plast 2004; 46 (04) 122-126
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Zwerus EL, Willigenburg NW, Scholtes VA, Somford MP, Eygendaal D, van den Bekerom MP. Normative values and affecting factors for the elbow range of motion. Shoulder Elbow 2019; 11 (03) 215-224
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Baker JL, Rotimi CN, Shriner D. Human ancestry correlates with language and reveals that race is not an objective genomic classifier. Sci Rep 2017; 7 (01) 1572
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Kannabiran B. An analytical study on the finger flexion cascade in general population of various occupations. Orthoped Rheumatol 2015; 1 (01) 18-27
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Varghese JG, Venugopal V, Srinivasan V, Priya GGH. A study on the normative values of finger flexion cascade in power grip users and non-power grip users. J Clin Diagn Res 2020; 14 (05) YC01-YC07
    Search in Google Scholar