BACKGROUND Fatigue resistance (FR) was here defined as the time during which grip strength (GS) drops to 50% of its maximum during sustained contraction. Since different GS systems exist, we compared FR obtained with Pneumatic (Pneu) and Hydraulic (Hydr) handgrip systems. Hand pain induced by both systems was also investigated since this might influence FR-outcomes. METHODS 618 young controls (Y: reference group), 426 middle-aged (MA) and 234 old community-dwelling adults (OLD), and 50 hospitalized patients (HOSP) participated. FR was recorded with Pneu and Hydr. Grip work corrected for body weight (area under the strength-time curve; GWBW = 0.75 ∗ maximal GS ∗ FR / body weight) was calculated. We corrected for body weight since heavier or more obese participants will have to engage more strength and sustain the effort over time. Thereafter GWBW was expressed as T-scores representing the deviation from the mean score of the sex-specific reference group. Experienced pain, its intensity and whether pain hindered participants to sustain the contraction were questioned. RESULTS Overall, although significant correlation between FR measured with both systems was found (r = 0.418, p < 0.001), FR measured by Pneu (55.7 ± 35.0 s) was higher compared to Hydr (34.2 ± 18.4 s). There was a proportional difference in FR measured with both systems (R2 = 0.36, p < 0.001), highlighting the longer participants could sustain FR test, the higher the difference in FR measured with both systems. Overall, there was no difference in pain variables between both systems. Independent of sex and system, GWBW deviated less from reference group in MA compared to OLD and HOSP. In OLD, GWBW deviated less from reference group than HOSP, independent of sex and system. CONCLUSION Participants were unable to sustain the contraction with Hydr as long as with Pneu. Hydr seems less able to identify subjects with higher levels of muscle endurance. Based on the GWBM-scores we can conclude that either system can be used for assessing muscle fatigability, but Pneu may be more sensitive as differences can be detected more easily.

中文翻译：

---

用气动和液压手柄系统测量的肌肉疲劳性不可互换。

背景技术在此，疲劳强度（FR）被定义为在持续收缩期间握力（GS）下降至其最大值的50％的时间。由于存在不同的GS系统，因此我们将获得的FR与气动（Pneu）和液压（Hydr）手柄系统进行了比较。还研究了两个系统引起的手部疼痛，因为这可能会影响FR结果。方法618名年轻对照组（Y：参考组），426名中年（MA）和234名社区老龄成年人（OLD），以及50名住院患者（HOSP）参加了研究。用Pneu和Hydr记录FR。计算出针对体重校正的握力功（强度-时间曲线下的面积； GWBW = 0.75 *最大GS * FR /体重）。我们校正了体重，因为越来越重的肥胖参与者将不得不投入更多的力量并随着时间的推移保持这种努力。此后，GWBW表示为T分数，代表与性别特定参考组平均得分的偏差。对经历过的疼痛，疼痛的强度以及疼痛是否妨碍参与者持续收缩提出了质疑。结果总体上，尽管发现两个系统的FR之间存在显着相关性（r = 0.418，p <0.001），但Pneu的FR（55.7±35.0 s）高于Hydr（34.2±18.4 s）。两种系统测得的FR呈比例差异（R2 = 0.36，p <0.001），突出表明参与者可以维持FR测试的时间越长，两种系统测得的FR差异越大。总体而言，两个系统之间的疼痛变量没有差异。与性别和系统无关，与OLD和HOSP相比，GWBW在MA中与参考组的偏差较小。在OLD中，与性别和系统无关，GWBW与参考组的差异小于HOSP。结论参与者无法与Hydr保持收缩，而与Pneu一样。Hydr似乎无法识别肌肉耐力较高的对象。根据GWBM得分，我们可以得出结论，可以使用这两种系统来评估肌肉的疲劳性，但是Pneu可能更敏感，因为可以更容易地检测到差异。