Dose–response relationship between hand-transmitted vibration and hand-arm vibration syndrome in a tropical environment

Objectives The dose–response relationship for hand-transmitted vibration has been investigated extensively in temperate environments. Since the clinical features of hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) differ between the temperate and tropical environment, we conducted this study to investigate the do...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inOccupational and environmental medicine (London, England) Vol. 70; no. 7; pp. 498 - 504
Main Authors Su, Anselm Ting, Maeda, Setsuo, Fukumoto, Jin, Darus, Azlan, Hoe, Victor C W, Miyai, Nobuyuki, Isahak, Marzuki, Takemura, Shigeki, Bulgiba, Awang, Yoshimasu, Kouichi, Miyashita, Kazuhisa
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 01.07.2013
BMJ Publishing Group
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Objectives The dose–response relationship for hand-transmitted vibration has been investigated extensively in temperate environments. Since the clinical features of hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) differ between the temperate and tropical environment, we conducted this study to investigate the dose–response relationship of HAVS in a tropical environment. Methods A total of 173 male construction, forestry and automobile manufacturing plant workers in Malaysia were recruited into this study between August 2011 and 2012. The participants were interviewed for history of vibration exposure and HAVS symptoms, followed by hand functions evaluation and vibration measurement. Three types of vibration doses—lifetime vibration dose (LVD), total operating time (TOT) and cumulative exposure index (CEI)—were calculated and its log values were regressed against the symptoms of HAVS. The correlation between each vibration exposure dose and the hand function evaluation results was obtained. Results The adjusted prevalence ratio for finger tingling and numbness was 3.34 (95% CI 1.27 to 8.98) for subjects with lnLVD≥20 ln m2 s−4 against those <16 ln m2 s−4. Similar dose–response pattern was found for CEI but not for TOT. No subject reported white finger. The prevalence of finger coldness did not increase with any of the vibration doses. Vibrotactile perception thresholds correlated moderately with lnLVD and lnCEI. Conclusions The dose–response relationship of HAVS in a tropical environment is valid for finger tingling and numbness. The LVD and CEI are more useful than TOT when evaluating the dose–response pattern of a heterogeneous group of vibratory tools workers.
Bibliography:ark:/67375/NVC-31K4CBR5-D
local:oemed;70/7/498
istex:DECEE0EC1DE9032C6B0155BC8285C9B457E80D63
ArticleID:oemed-2012-101321
href:oemed-70-498.pdf
PMID:23645621
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:1351-0711
1470-7926
1470-7926
DOI:10.1136/oemed-2012-101321