The effectiveness of therapeutic craft-making activities in treating lower-third forearm fracture: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Occupational Therapists use craft-making activities as therapeutic interventions to improve physical and psychological functioning of injured people. Despite the therapeutic effects, craft-making is not routinely used in hand rehabilitation as an intervention for patients with upper limb fractures. These patients often experience physical and psychosocial issues; however, without supportive evidence, therapists hesitate to integrate craft-making into upper limb rehabilitation. PURPOSE: This study aims to determine the effect of a conventional therapy combined with therapeutic craft-making on disability, post-traumatic stress, and physical performance in patients with lower-third forearm fractures. METHODS: Priori analysis determined that 38 patients will be needed for this superiority randomized controlled trial to be conducted in a hand and upper limb rehabilitation center. Eligible participants must comprehend English, be diagnosed with lower-third forearm fracture(s) stabilized by open reduction internal fixation, and referred to therapy within 2-4 weeks of surgery. Following the CONSORT guidelines, participants will be randomly assigned to a Control (conventional therapy) group or an Intervention (conventional therapy and craft) group. Twice weekly for 6 weeks, Therapist A will provide both groups with 1-h of conventional therapy while the Intervention group will also receive 15 min of craft-making supervised by the Researcher. The primary outcome of disability will be measured with the Quick-Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand. The secondary outcome measurements include the Patient-Rated-Wrist-Evaluation; Impact of Event Scale-revised and physical performance, i.e., the Purdue Pegboard Test, AROM, and grip strength. All outcome measures will be obtained by Therapist B prior to the 1st therapy visit and after the 12th visit. Descriptive analysis will be done for the categorical and continuous data and a mixed model ANOVA for analysis of the initial and final assessment scores within and between groups. RESULTS: This study is ongoing. DISCUSSION: The intent of this study is to determine if therapeutic crafts have value as an intervention when used in combination with conventional therapy for patients with lower-third forearm fractures. If the value of crafts is supported, this evidence may reduce hesitancy of therapists to implement craft-making with patients referred to hand therapy after upper limb fracture. CONCLUSION: This study is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR, ACTRN12622000150741. Retrospectively registered on 28 January 2022 https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=382676&isReview=true ..

Orthotic intervention options to non-surgically manage adult and pediatric trigger finger: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The design and efficacy of orthotic intervention to non-surgically manage adult and pediatric trigger finger vary widely. PURPOSE: To identify types of orthoses (including relative motion), effectiveness, and outcome measurements used to non-surgically manage adult and pediatric trigger finger. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The study was undertaken according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 Statement and registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registry, number CRD42022322515. Two independent authors electronically and manually searched, and screened 4 databases; selected articles following pre-set eligibility criteria; assessed the quality of the evidence using the Structured Effectiveness for Quality Evaluation of Study; and extracted the data. RESULTS: Of the 11 articles included, 2 involved pediatric trigger finger and 9 adult trigger finger. Orthoses for pediatric trigger finger positioned finger(s), hand, and/or wrist of children in neutral extension. In adults, a single joint was immobilized by the orthosis, blocking either the metacarpophalangeal joint or the proximal or distal interphalangeal joint. All studies reported positive results with statistically significant improvements and medium to large effect size to almost every outcome measure, including the Number of Triggering Events in Ten Active Fist 1.37, Frequency of Triggering from 2.07 to 2.54, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure from 0.46 to 1.88, Visual Analogue Pain Scale from 0.92 to 2.00, and Numeric Rating Pain Scale from 0.49 to 1.31. Severity tools and patient-rated outcome measures were used with the validity and reliability of some unknown. CONCLUSIONS: Orthoses are effective for non-surgical management of pediatric and adult trigger finger using various orthotic options. Although used in practice, evidence for the use of relative motion orthosis is absent. High-quality studies based on sound research questions and design using reliable and valid outcome measures are needed.

Implementing an internal audit to change practice: Current evidence and review of patient outcomes enabled transition to the relative motion extension approach in the postoperative management of zones IV-VI extensor tendon repairs.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports use of the relative motion extension (RME) approach following extensor tendon repairs in zones V-VI yielding good or excellent outcomes. PURPOSE: To demonstrate how a 3-year internal audit and regular review of emerging evidence guided our change in practice from our longstanding use of the Norwich Regimen to the RME approach using implementation research methods. We compared the outcomes of both approaches prior to the formal adoption of the RME approach. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical audit. METHODS: A prospective audit of all consecutive adult finger extensor tendon repairs in zones IV-VII rehabilitated in our tertiary public health hand centre was undertaken between November 2014 and December 2017. Each audit year, outcomes were reviewed regarding the Norwich regimen and the RME early active motion approaches. As new evidence emerged, adjustments were made to our audit protocol for the RME approach. Discharge measurements of the range of motion of the affected and contralateral fingers and complications were recorded. RESULTS: During the 3-year audit, data was available on 79 patients (56 RME group including 59 fingers with 71 tendon repairs; 23 Norwich group including 28 fingers with 34 tendon repairs) with simple (n = 68) and complex (n = 11) finger extensor tendon zones IV-VI repairs (no zone VII presented during this time). Over time, the practice pattern shifted from the Norwich Regimen approach to the RME approach (and with the use of the RME plus [n = 33] and RME only [n = 23] approaches utilized). All approaches yielded similar good to excellent outcomes per total active motion and Miller's classification, with no tendon ruptures or need for secondary surgery. CONCLUSIONS: An internal audit of practice provided the necessary information regarding implementation to support a shift in hand therapy practice and to gain therapist or surgeon confidence in adopting the RME approach as another option for the rehabilitation of zone IV-VI finger extensor tendon repairs.

Use of a relative motion flexion orthosis after epitendinous zone II flexor tendon repair: A case report.

STUDY DESIGN: Case report INTRODUCTION: Relative motion flexion (RMF) orthoses are emerging as an option for early active motion (EAM) postoperatively. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To describe the rationale and implementation of an RMF orthosis to manage a patient after partial zone II epitendinous flexor tendon repairs. METHODS: This case involves a female who sustained partial flexor tendon lacerations to her middle finger in zone II, 60% flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) and 90% flexor digitorum profundus (FDP). After epitendinous repair she was referred to therapy for EAM with a no orthosis request. The unusual circumstances prompted the therapist, concerned about the risk of tendon rupture to engage in discussion with the surgeon. Following discussion, a decision was made to use an RMF orthosis for controlled EAM to protect the epitendinous zone II FDS and FDP repairs. Outcomes of range of motion (ROM), total active motion (TAM), %TAM, grip, and quickDASH are reported. RESULTS: Neither the FDP or FDS tendons ruptured, nor were there any joint contractures. "Good" %TAM outcomes were achieved at 12-week postoperatively. Quick DASH scores improved 61 points indicating a clinically meaningful difference of improved function. DISCUSSION: The lack of a multi-strand core suture repair is unusual in combination with EAM. The positive outcomes reported in this single patient have raised questions about the protective benefit of the RMF orthosis when used with a zone II epitendinous repair of a 90% FDP laceration. Epitendinous repair of a partial (60%) FDS injury, however, is not uncommon and often not repaired at all. CONCLUSIONS: In this single case report the epitendinous repairs of zone II 90% FDP and 60% FDS with digital nerve involvement were successfully managed with an RMF only orthosis. The use of EAM with an epitendinous repair is in conflict to the current surgical and therapy literature.

"Around the global hand table": Hand surgeon and therapist perspectives on overcoming barriers to relative motion orthotic intervention in the management of zones V-VI finger extensor tendon repairs.

INTRODUCTION: An international survey of therapists cited 2 barriers (physician preference and departmental policy) to the implementation of a relative motion extension (RME) orthosis/early active motion (EAM) approach. STUDY DESIGN: e-survey PURPOSE: To glean insight from hand surgeons and hand therapists regarding their awareness and experiences in implementing or not implementing an RME orthosis/EAM approach for management of finger zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs. METHODS: Two e-surveys, one to hand surgeons and the other to hand therapists were distributed. Participants were asked 8-open ended questions with the opportunity for additional comment. RESULTS: Nine of 11 surgeons and 10 of 11 therapists (clinicians/educators/administrators) who were surveyed, participated. All respondents from 7 countries were aware of the RME/EAM approach, with only 1 surgeon and 2 therapists not implementing. Surgeons once aware, quickly implement; therapists in this survey implemented about 2.5 years after learning of the approach. Surgeon use was influenced more by their peers than the evidence while therapist knowledge came from professional meetings. Therapists teaching at university-level and continuing education integrate the approach. DISCUSSION: Although the RME orthosis/EAM approach has been around for 4 decades, awareness for the hand surgeons and therapists surveyed has only been over the past 20 years. Surveyed surgeons like to visualize how the RME concept works and therapists depend more on the evidence. To overcome barriers to RME/EAM implementation, several strategies are outlined. CONCLUSION: Although a small survey, valuable comments provide insight for addressing the previously cited barriers. Strategies for increasing awareness and fostering implementation of an RME orthosis/EAM approach are offered by international hand surgeons and therapists surveyed regarding the commonly cited barriers of surgeon preference and department procedures.

Partnering with people living with rheumatoid arthritis for care of their hands: Four case reports using relative motion orthoses.

STUDY DESIGN: Case report. INTRODUCTION: Despite better disease control with more effective medications, people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) continue to experience persistent and fluctuating levels of pain, swelling and functional limitations in their hands. PURPOSE: To describe therapists and people living with RA working together to understand what could be occurring in their hands because of the RA and how relative motion (RM) orthoses may be used to self-manage common hand RA related problems. METHODS: Case reports are used to demonstrate how patient self-report, clinical exam, and observation of hand movement and function are integrated into the design of RM orthoses for individuals with RA. The cases are supported by photos and videos, including a personal narrative video exploring 1 persons' personal perspective on their use of RM orthoses. RESULTS: Case reports illustrate adaptive and/or protective RME orthoses use for RA related finger malalignment, tendon subluxation, joint pain and instability in the hand. The narrative video also introduces a person living with RA, who speaks candidly about her multiple RM orthoses and how she decides which orthosis is "best" for a given activity and the current level of RA related problems in her hands. DISCUSSION: It is not unusual for individuals with RA to have multiple RM orthoses, made for different purposes and fabricated from different materials. Mulitple RM orthosis options allows a person to select what is "best" for them, depending on the context of use and priorities or needs. CONCLUSION: Partnering with people living with RA to understand how to use simple, low-profile, adaptive and protective RM orthoses may be an effective way to support self-management of common RA related hand problems.

Prescription of exercise relative motion orthoses to improve limited proximal interphalangeal joint movement: A prospective, multi-center, consecutive case series.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, consecutive case series INTRODUCTION: There are 3 categories of relative motion orthoses; protective, exercise and adaptive, with only 2 unpublished studies that prescribed for exercise. These orthoses are of 2 types: relative motion extension (RME) orthoses and relative motion flexion (RMF) orthoses. PURPOSE OF STUDY: To describe prescription of relative motion (RME and RMF) exercise orthoses when used to assist recovery of proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) movement after injury or surgery. METHODS: Therapists enrolled patients who had limited PIPJ movement after injury or surgery and demonstrated greater passive than active isolated PIPJ movement. Relative motion exercise orthoses and usual hand therapy treatments were implemented for 6 weeks. Measures of PIPJ motion, pain, and patient-report of orthotic wear time and perceived benefit were recorded at the time of orthotic intervention, at 3 weeks and at 6 weeks. RESULTS: Eight therapists from 4 private hand therapy clinics implemented RM exercise orthoses in 14 patients with limited PIPJ flexion (RME orthoses) and 6 patients with limited PIPJ extension (RMF orthoses). One participant prescribed a RMF orthosis failed to complete the study. Isolated PIPJ active flexion improved for those prescribed RME orthoses (n = 14/14) and isolated PIPJ active extension improved for those prescribe a RMF orthosis (n = 2/5). Most patient-reports were positive about the relative motion experience. DISCUSSION: Although diagnoses and prescription times differed, the outcomes of this patient series prescribed relative motion exercise orthoses agree with those of 2 unpublished case series; all in support relative motion exercise orthoses to improve limited PIPJ movement. CONCLUSION: Future studies implementing relative motion exercise orthoses to recover limited PIPJ movement after injury or surgery may be worthwhile.

Postoperative management of zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs: A survey of practice in Malaysia and comparison to IFSHT member countries.

Introduction: A survey of International Federation of Societies for Hand Therapy (IFSHT) member countries identified relative motion extension as the preferred approach to management of zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs. The aims of this survey were to identify and compare hand therapy practice patterns in Malaysia (a non-IFSHT member country) with findings of the IFSHT survey including an IFSHT subset of Asia-Pacific therapists and to investigate if membership status of the Malaysian Society for Hand Therapists (MSHT) influenced therapy practice patterns. Methods: An online English-language survey was distributed to 90 occupational therapists and physiotherapists including MSHT members and non-members. Participation required management of at least one extensor tendon repair in the preceding year. Five approaches were surveyed: immobilisation, early passive motion (EPM) with dynamic splinting, and early active motion (EAM) delivered by resting hand (RH), palmar resting interphalangeal joints free (PR), and relative motion extension (RME) splints. Results: Thirty-seven of the 53 therapists (68%) who commenced the survey completed it. The most used approach was dynamic/EPM (28%), followed by RH/immobilisation (22%) and RH/EAM (22%). A preference for RME/EAM was identified with implementation barriers being surgeon preference and hand therapist confidence. Discussion: Approach selection for Malaysian therapists differed from the combined IFSHT and Asia-Pacific respondents, with the former using dynamic/EPM and RH/immobilisation compared to IFSHT respondents who predominately used RME/EAM and PR/EAM. This survey provides valuable insights into Malaysian hand therapists' practices. If implementation barriers and therapist confidence are addressed, Malaysian practice patterns may change to better align with current evidence.

Relative motion flexion splinting for the rehabilitation of flexor tendon repairs: A systematic review.

Introduction: Relative motion splinting has been used successfully in the treatment of extensor tendon repairs and has recently been applied in flexor tendon rehabilitation. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify articles reporting use of relative motion flexion (RMF) splinting following flexor tendon repair and to examine indications for use and clinical outcomes. Methods: Seven medical databases, four trials registries and three grey literature sources were systematically searched and screened against pre-specified eligibility criteria. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were independently performed by two reviewers. Results: A total of 12 studies were identified, of which three met the review eligibility criteria: one retrospective case series; one cadaveric proof of concept study; and one ongoing prospective case series. The type of splint (including metacarpophalangeal joint position and available movement), exercise programme, and zone of tendon injury varied between studies. Both case series presented acceptable range of movement and grip strength outcomes. The prospective series reported one tendon rupture and two tenolysis procedures; the retrospective series reported no tendon ruptures or secondary surgeries. Discussion: We found limited evidence supporting the use of RMF splinting in the rehabilitation of zones I-III flexor tendon repairs. Further prospective research with larger patient cohorts is required to assess the clinical outcomes, patient reported outcomes and safety of RMF splinting in comparison to other regimes. Application of the relative motion principles to flexor tendon splinting varied across the included studies, and we suggest an operational definition of relative motion in this context.

Postoperative hand therapy management of zones V and VI extensor tendon repairs of the fingers: An international inquiry of current practice.

STUDY DESIGN: Electronic Web-based survey. INTRODUCTION: Evidence supports early motion over immobilization for postoperative extensor tendon repair management. Various early motion programs and orthoses are used, with no single approach recognized as superior. It remains unknown if and how early motion is used by hand therapists worldwide. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a preferred approach and identify practice patterns for constituents of International Federation of Societies for Hand Therapy full-member countries. METHODS: Participation in this English-language survey required respondents to have postoperatively managed at least one extensor tendon repair within the previous year. Approaches surveyed included programs of immobilization, early passive (EPM), and early active (EAM) with motion delivered by resting hand, dynamic, palmar/interphalangeal joints (IPJs) free, or relative motion extension (RME) orthoses. Survey flow depended on the respondent's answer to their "most used" approach in the previous year. RESULTS: There were 992 individual responses from 28 International Federation of Societies for Hand Therapy member countries including 887 eligible responses with an 81% completion rate. The order of most used program was EAM (83%), EPM (8%), and immobilization (7%). The two most used orthoses for delivery of EAM were RME (43%) and palmar/IPJs free (25%). The RME orthosis was preferred for earlier recovery of hand function and motion. Barriers to therapists wanting to use the RME/EAM approach related to preference of surgeon (70%) and clinic (24%). DISCUSSION: In practice, many therapists select from multiple approaches to manage zone V and VI extensor tendon repairs. Therapists believed TAM achieved with the RME/EAM approach was superior to the other approaches. Contrary to the literature, in practice, many therapists modify forearm-based palmar/IPJs free orthosis to exclude the wrist to manage this diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The RME/EAM approach was identified as the favored approach. Practice patterns and evidence did not always align.

Relative motion extension management of zones V and VI extensor tendon repairs: Does international practice align with the current evidence?

STUDY DESIGN: Electronic Web-based survey. INTRODUCTION: Therapists participating in an international survey selected relative motion extension (RME) as the "most used" approach for the postoperative management of zones V and VI extensor tendon repairs. A subgroup of respondents identified RME as their preferred approach and were asked about their routine RME practices. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this study was to capture data from routine RME users about their practices and compare this with the RME evidence. METHODS: An English-language survey was distributed to 36 International Federation of Societies for Hand Therapy full-member countries. Participation required therapists to have postsurgically managed at least one extensor tendon repair within the previous year. Those who selected RME as their "most used" approach were asked to identify which variation of the RME approach they favored: RME plus (with wrist orthosis), RME only, or "both" RME plus and RME only, and then were directed to additional questions related to their choice. RESULTS: Respondents from 28 International Federation of Societies for Hand Therapy full-member countries completed the survey. RME users (N = 368; 41.5% of sample) contributed to this secondary data. Respondents favored the RME variation "RME plus" (47%), followed by "both" (44%), then "RME only" (9%) with most managing single digit/simple injuries (n = 287, 81%) versus multiple digit/complex injuries (n = 96, 27%), and partial repairs (n = 278, 79%). DISCUSSION: Practices not aligning with limited level II-IV evidence includes half of RME only users not adding/substituting an overnight orthosis; use of RME plus versus RME only for both repairs of independent extensor tendons and repairs proximal to the juncturae tendinum; fabrication of three not four-finger orthotic design; and restricting use to only repairs of one or two fingers. CONCLUSIONS: RME plus and RME only are used interchangeably depending on surgeon preferences and patient/tendon factors. Compared with RME plus, from this survey, it appears that the RME only approach yields similar uncomplicated, early return of motion and hand function.

Use of a relative motion flexion orthosis for postoperative management of zone I/II flexor digitorum profundus repair: A retrospective consecutive case series.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, single-center, consecutive case series. INTRODUCTION: In concept, a relative motion flexion (RMF) orthosis will induce a "quadriga effect" on a given flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) tendon, limiting its excursion and force of flexion while still permitting a wide range of finger motion. This effect can be exploited in the rehabilitation of zone I and II FDP repairs. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To describe the use of RMF orthoses to manage zone I and II FDP 4-strand repairs. METHODS: Medical record review of 10 consecutive zone I and II FDP tendon repairs managed with RMF orthosis for 8 to 10 weeks in combination with a static dorsal blocking or wrist orthosis for the initial 3 weeks. RESULTS: Indications included sharp lacerations (n = 6), ragged lacerations (n = 2), staged flexor tendon reconstruction (n = 1), and type IV avulsion (n = 1). In 8 of the 10 cases that completed follow-up, the mean arc of proximal interphalangeal/distal interphalangeal active motion were as follows: sharp, 0° to 106°/0° to 75°; ragged, 0° to 90°/0° to 25°; reconstruction, 0° to 90°/10° to 45°; and avulsion, 0° to 95°/0° to 20°. Grip performance available for 6 of 10 cases was 62% to 108% of the dominant hand. There were no tendon ruptures, secondary surgeries, or proximal interphalangeal joint contractures. CONCLUSION: Based on this small series, the RMF approach appears to be safe and effective. It can lead to similar mobility and functional recovery as other early active motion protocols, with certain practical advantages and without major complications. Further investigation with larger, multicenter, prospective, longitudinal cohorts and/or randomized clinical trials is necessary.

Two case reports-Use of relative motion orthoses to manage extensor tendon zones III and IV and sagittal band injuries in adjacent fingers.

STUDY DESIGN: Case report. INTRODUCTION: Injuries to adjacent fingers with differing extensor tendon (ET) zones and/or sagittal band pose a challenge to therapists as no treatment guidelines exist. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: This report highlights how the relative motion flexion/extension (RMF/RME) concepts were combined into one orthosis to manage a zone IV ET repair (RME) and a zone III central slip repair (RMF) in adjacent fingers (Case 1); and how a single RME orthosis was adapted to limit proximal interphalangeal joint motion to manage multi-level ET zone III-IV injuries and a sagittal band repair in adjacent fingers (case 2). METHODS: Adapted relative motion orthoses allowed early active motion and graded exercises based on clinical reasoning and evidence. Outcomes were standard TAM% and Miller's criteria. RESULTS: 'Excellent' and 'good' outcomes were achieved by twelve weeks post surgery. Both cases returned to unrestricted work at 6 and 7 weeks. Neither reported functional deficits at discharge. DISCUSSION: Outcomes in 2 cases involving multiple digit injuries exceeded those previously reported for ET zone III-IV repairs. CONCLUSIONS: Relative motion orthoses can be adapted and applied to multi-finger injuries, eliminating the need for multiple, bulky or functionally-limiting orthoses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Relative motion orthoses in the management of various hand conditions: A scoping review.

STUDY DESIGN: Scoping review. INTRODUCTION: The relative motion (RM) concept and immediate controlled active motion (ICAM) program, originally applied after zones IV-VII extensor tendon repairs, have been modified and extended to a variety of hand conditions, such as sagittal band injury, boutonniere deformity, and extensor lag. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To scope the published and unpublished literature to review ICAM modifications, hand conditions for which the RM concept is used, and describe the preferred degree of relative metacarpophalangeal joint extension/flexion reported and spectrum of orthosis design. METHODS: Electronic and manual searches of scientific and gray literature and expert consultation were conducted. Documents with quantitative data were assessed with Oxford Levels of Evidence and the Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale. RESULTS: Fifteen references met the inclusion criteria; 1 was level III evidence, and others were level IV evidence. RM-ICAM modifications, preferred degree of relative extension/flexion, orthotic design, management of other hand conditions and knowledge gaps were identified. CONCLUSION: RM orthoses may improve outcomes in a variety of hand conditions; however, high-quality studies that contribute to the evidence base for its use are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable.

Rehabilitation of flexor and extensor tendon injuries in the hand: current updates.

In recent years, a significant amount of research in the field of tendon injury in the hand has contributed to advances in both surgical and rehabilitation techniques. The introduction of early motion has improved tendon healing, reduced complications, and enhanced final outcomes. There is overwhelming evidence to show that carefully devised rehabilitation programs are critical to achieving favourable outcomes. Whatever the type, or level, of flexor or extensor injury, the ultimate goal of both the surgeon and therapist is to protect the repair, modify peritendinous adhesions, promote optimal tendon excursion and preserve joint motion. Early tendon motion regimens are initiated at surgery or within 5 days post repair. Intra-operative information from the surgeon to the therapist is vital to the choice of splint protected position to reduce repair rupture/gap forces, and to commencement of active, or splint controlled, motion for tendon excursion. Decisions should align with the phases of healing, the clinician's observations, frequent range of motion measurements and patient input. Clinical concepts pertinent to early motion rehabilitation decisions are presented by zone of injury for both flexor and extensor tendons during the early phases of healing.

Immediate controlled active motion following zone 4-7 extensor tendon repair.

This article describes a splint management program for zone 4-7 extensor tendon repairs that allows for immediate controlled active motion (ICAM) of the repair and greater arcs of motion for adjacent digits. The splint is designed to relieve tension on the tenorrhaphy by positioning the involved digit in slight metacarpophalangeal joint hyperextension relative to the uninvolved digits with a simple yoke splint designed to control the metacarpophalangeal joints and a second splint to control wrist position. Cadaver and intraoperative trials support this technique, and 140 patient cases managed over 20 years. The majority of patients achieved a rating of excellent for both digital extension and flexion as judged by Miller's criteria. There were very few extension lags and no tendon ruptures. Patients returned to work in the ICAM splint on average in 18 days. The average time to complete the program was seven weeks after repair, and required an average of eight therapy visits. The results of this study demonstrate that the ICAM splinting technique is safe, simple to manage, decreases the morbidity associated with immobilization, is cost effective, and has high patient compliance when compared to other early motion programs.