The Journal of hand surgery · 2022
Passive Mobilization With Place and Hold Versus Active Motion Therapy After Flexor Tendon Repair: A Randomized Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chevalley Sara, Tenfält Maria, Åhlén Martina, Strömberg Joakim
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Mobilization after flexor tendon repair in fingers has been a subject of debate for several years. Many hand surgery clinics have turned to early active mobilization. However, there is no strong scientific evidence suggesting that early active mobilization produces a better range of motion (ROM) than the Kleinert regimen when place and hold is added. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective randomized trial was to investigate whether active mobilization is superior to passive mobilization with place and hold after flexor tendon repair in the fingers. Our hypothesis was that patients who follow the active mobilization protocol have a better ROM than those who follow the passive protocol with place and hold.
METHODS: Sixty-four patients with a flexor tendon injury in zone I or II were included. After surgery, randomization to undergo either active mobilization or passive mobilization with place and hold was performed. The patients were followed-up for 12 months using outcome measurements, including ROM, strength, rupture frequency, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, ABILHAND questionnaire, and performance on the Purdue Pegboard test.
RESULTS: We were unable to find any significant difference between the 2 groups for any of the outcome measurements, ROM, grip strength, key pinch, rupture frequency, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, ABILHAND questionnaire, and performance on the Purdue Pegboard test.
CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes were equivalent for both the mobilization groups.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic I.
METHODS: Sixty-four patients with a flexor tendon injury in zone I or II were included. After surgery, randomization to undergo either active mobilization or passive mobilization with place and hold was performed. The patients were followed-up for 12 months using outcome measurements, including ROM, strength, rupture frequency, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, ABILHAND questionnaire, and performance on the Purdue Pegboard test.
RESULTS: We were unable to find any significant difference between the 2 groups for any of the outcome measurements, ROM, grip strength, key pinch, rupture frequency, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, ABILHAND questionnaire, and performance on the Purdue Pegboard test.
CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes were equivalent for both the mobilization groups.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic I.