Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries · 2012
The effects of splinting on shoulder function in adult burns.
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.
Kolmus Alison M, Holland Anne E, Byrne Martin J, Cleland Heather J
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Exercises are commonly prescribed to improve shoulder range following axillary burns, but the effect of additional splinting is unclear.
AIM: To compare splinting and exercise to exercise alone in adults with axillary burns.
METHOD: Prospective randomised study allocating participants to a splinting (n=27) or no splinting group (n=25). Outcomes measured at six and twelve weeks were shoulder abduction and flexion range, quality of life using the Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief (BSHS-B) questionnaire and upper limb function using the Upper Extremity Functional Index (UEFI) and the Grocery Shelving Task (GST).
RESULTS: At week twelve, there was no difference between groups for shoulder abduction (mean difference 0°, 95% CI -22 to 22°), flexion (mean difference 2°, 95% CI -18 to 23°), BSHS-B (mean difference -2 points, 95% CI -23 to 18 points), UEFI (mean difference -3 points, 95% CI -19 to 14 points) and GST (mean difference -9s, 95% CI -20 to 3s). Adherence to splinting decreased from 77% of participants at week one to 16% at week twelve.
CONCLUSION: Shoulder splints did not improve clinical outcomes in this study population and low adherence rates suggest splinting may be unacceptable to patients and makes drawing firm conclusions difficult.
AIM: To compare splinting and exercise to exercise alone in adults with axillary burns.
METHOD: Prospective randomised study allocating participants to a splinting (n=27) or no splinting group (n=25). Outcomes measured at six and twelve weeks were shoulder abduction and flexion range, quality of life using the Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief (BSHS-B) questionnaire and upper limb function using the Upper Extremity Functional Index (UEFI) and the Grocery Shelving Task (GST).
RESULTS: At week twelve, there was no difference between groups for shoulder abduction (mean difference 0°, 95% CI -22 to 22°), flexion (mean difference 2°, 95% CI -18 to 23°), BSHS-B (mean difference -2 points, 95% CI -23 to 18 points), UEFI (mean difference -3 points, 95% CI -19 to 14 points) and GST (mean difference -9s, 95% CI -20 to 3s). Adherence to splinting decreased from 77% of participants at week one to 16% at week twelve.
CONCLUSION: Shoulder splints did not improve clinical outcomes in this study population and low adherence rates suggest splinting may be unacceptable to patients and makes drawing firm conclusions difficult.