Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2019
Comparative strength of elbow splint designs: a new splint design as a stronger alternative to posterior splints.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Gluck Matthew J, Beck Christina M, Sochol Kristen M, London Daniel A, Hausman Michael R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal injuries of the upper extremity are frequently treated with temporary external immobilization. Traditionally, long arm posterior splints have been used to limit flexion/extension of the elbow. However, long arm posterior splints have been observed to fail clinically, necessitating a stronger alternative. In this study, we assessed the biomechanical strength of the long arm posterior splint compared with a new spiral splint design.
METHODS: One male and one female participant were placed 10 times in long arm posterior splints and 10 times in spiral splints. Both splint types were subjected to a downward mechanical load of 39.2 N (4 kg) and assessed for a change in both flexion/extension and pronation/supination.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in starting position or starting flexion/extension between the 2 splint designs. Posterior splints allowed significantly greater initial pronation/supination compared with spiral splints. Both splint groups had significant increases in flexion/extension and pronation/supination compared with their starting ranges of motion. There was no significant difference in the change in pronation/supination between the 2 splint groups. Finally, posterior splints allowed a significantly greater change in flexion/extension compared with spiral splints.
CONCLUSION: Spiral splints offered less initial pronation/supination than long arm posterior splints. Furthermore, spiral splints are able to resist flexion/extension of the elbow after application of a downward mechanical load better than posterior splints, thus suggesting spiral splints are mechanically superior to long arm posterior splints.
METHODS: One male and one female participant were placed 10 times in long arm posterior splints and 10 times in spiral splints. Both splint types were subjected to a downward mechanical load of 39.2 N (4 kg) and assessed for a change in both flexion/extension and pronation/supination.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in starting position or starting flexion/extension between the 2 splint designs. Posterior splints allowed significantly greater initial pronation/supination compared with spiral splints. Both splint groups had significant increases in flexion/extension and pronation/supination compared with their starting ranges of motion. There was no significant difference in the change in pronation/supination between the 2 splint groups. Finally, posterior splints allowed a significantly greater change in flexion/extension compared with spiral splints.
CONCLUSION: Spiral splints offered less initial pronation/supination than long arm posterior splints. Furthermore, spiral splints are able to resist flexion/extension of the elbow after application of a downward mechanical load better than posterior splints, thus suggesting spiral splints are mechanically superior to long arm posterior splints.