ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Multi--center randomized controlled trial with two intervention parallel groups. An equivalence trial. INTRODUCTION: Relative motion extension (RME) orthoses are widely used in the postoperative management of finger extensor tendon repairs in zones V-VI. Variability in orthotic additions to the RME only (without a wrist orthosis) approach has not been verified in clinical studies. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To examine if two RME only approaches (with or without an additional overnight wrist-hand-finger orthosis) yields clinically similar outcomes. METHODS: Thirty-two adult (>18 years) participants (25 males, 7 females) were randomized to one of two intervention groups receiving either 1) a relative motion extension orthosis for day wear and an overnight wrist-hand-finger orthosis ('RME Day' group), or 2) a relative motion extension orthosis to be worn continuously ('RME 24-Hr' group); both groups for a period of four postoperative weeks. RESULTS: Using a series of linear mixed models we found no differences between the intervention groups for the primary (ROM including TAM, TAM as a percentage of the contralateral side [%TAM], and Millers Criteria) and secondary outcome measures of grip strength, QuickDASH and PRWHE scores. The models did identify several covariates that are correlated with outcome measures. The covariate 'Age' influenced TAM (P = .006) and %TAM (P = .007), with increasing age correlating with less TAM and recovery of TAM compared to the contralateral digit. 'Sex' and 'Contralateral TAM' are also significant covariates for some outcomes. DISCUSSION: With similar outcomes between both intervention groups, the decision to include an additional night orthosis should be individually tailored for patients rather than protocol-based. As the covariates of 'Age' and 'Sex' influenced outcomes, these should be considered in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: A relative motion extension only approach with or without an additional overnight wrist-hand-finger orthosis yielded clinically similar results whilst allowing early functional hand use, without tendon rupture.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Existing theoretical evidence indicates sensorimotor retraining is beneficial following wrist injury. However, there are no large cohort studies applying the knowledge in a clinical setting. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To Determine the clinical benefits of sensorimotor rehabilitation following distal upper extremity injury. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: A sensorimotor rehabilitation program was evaluated following distal upper extremity injury. A battery of clinical and patient-rated outcome measures (PROM) were taken before and after group completion. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients, 49 males (53%) and 44 females (47%), completed the program. There were statistically significant improvements in 12 clinical measures. However, improvements in 11 of the clinical measures only had a small effect size (<0.5). Joint position sense had the greatest clinical change with a median improvement of 4° on the left and 3.9° on the right, and these had moderate effect sizes of 0.5 and 0.7, respectively. There were statistically significant improvements in all PROMs. PRWE had a median improvement of 21 (ES = 1.2). UEFI showed median improvements of 19.7 (ES = 1.4) and NRS (pain) median improved 2.5 (ES = 1.2). All PROM improvements had mean change greater than associated MCIDs. DISCUSSION: These results indicate the benefits of sensorimotor group rehabilitation and supports existing literature regarding the importance of sensorimotor control for JPS accuracy and function. Group based sensorimotor programs present an efficient and low-cost opportunity to provide intervention to patients following upper extremity injury. CONCLUSION: A sensorimotor group rehabilitation program may improve patient outcomes following distal upper extremity injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2b prospective cohort.