A randomized clinical trial comparing early active motion programs: Earlier hand function, TAM, and orthotic satisfaction with a relative motion extension program for zones V and VI extensor tendon repairs.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial with parallel groups. INTRODUCTION: Early active mobilization programs are used after zones V and VI extensor tendon repairs; two programs used are relative motion extension (RME) orthosis and controlled active motion (CAM). Although no comparative studies exist, use of the RME orthosis has been reported to support earlier hand function. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: This randomized clinical trial investigated whether patients managed with an RME program would recover hand function earlier postoperatively than those managed with a CAM program. METHODS: Forty-two participants with zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs were randomized into either a CAM or RME program. The Sollerman Hand Function Test (SHFT) was the primary outcome measure of hand function. Days to return to work, QuickDASH (Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand) questionnaire, total active motion (TAM), grip strength, and patient satisfaction were the secondary measures of outcome. RESULTS: The RME group demonstrated better results at four weeks for the SHFT score (P = .0073; 95% CI: -10.9, -1.8), QuickDASH score (P = .05; 95% CI: -0.05, 19.5), and TAM (P = .008; 95% CI: -65.4, -10.6). Days to return to work were similar between groups (P = .77; 95% CI: -28.1, 36.1). RME participants were more satisfied with the orthosis (P < .0001; 95% CI: 3.5, 8.4). No tendon ruptures occurred. DISCUSSION: Participants managed using an RME program, and RME finger orthosis demonstrated significantly better early hand function, TAM, and orthosis satisfaction than those managed by the CAM program using a static wrist-hand-finger orthosis. This is likely due to the less restrictive design of the RME orthosis. CONCLUSIONS: The RME program supports safe earlier recovery of hand function and motion when compared to a CAM program following repair of zones V and VI extensor tendons.

Reliability of a two-probe ultrasound imaging procedure to measure strain in the Achilles tendon.

BACKGROUND: Alteration in the strain properties of the Achilles tendon may lead to adaptations such as pathological stiffening. Stiff tendons have reduced adaptive ability, which may increase the risk for developing tendinopathy. Strain can be measured using musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging. A two-probe ultrasound procedure may reduce the measurement error associated with a one-probe procedure. However, the reliability of the two-probe procedure has not been established. This study aimed to determine the within-session intra- and inter-rater reliability and between-session reliability of a two-probe ultrasound procedure to measure Achilles tendon strain. METHODS: Participants were 29 healthy individuals (19 females, 10 males; mean age 33.6 years). Achilles tendon images were acquired with a two-probe ultrasound procedure as the ankle moved through a standardised range of motion (20° plantarflexion to 10° dorsiflexion). Both probes were positioned longitudinally, one over the musculotendinous junction and the second over the calcaneal insertion of the Achilles tendon. Repeat measurements were taken for all participants at the initial study visit, and for 10 participants in a second measurement session 4 weeks later. Strain measures were calculated from pre-captured images using Motion Analysis 2014v1 software by two independent raters. Within-session intra- and inter-rater reliability and between-session intra-rater reliability were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals. The standard error of measurement was also calculated. RESULTS: The two-probe procedure to measure Achilles tendon strain showed excellent within-session intra-rater (ICC = 0.84, p < 0.001) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.88, p = 0.003), but poor between-session intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.18, p = 0.397). CONCLUSION: The two-probe procedure to measure Achilles tendon strain is reliable for repeated measurements on the same day. However, measurement error increased when strain was measured on different days, which may be attributable to a combination of examiner error and participant factors. Measurement of Achilles tendon strain offers an additional tool for evaluating the tendon's mechanical characteristics. The ability to reliably quantify strain may allow clinicians to identify those at risk for Achilles tendinopathy and formulate more effective management plans.

Don't Assume the Control Group Is Normal-People with Asymptomatic Tendon Pathology Have Higher Pressure Pain Thresholds.

Objective: Pain pressure thresholds (PPT) are used to study peripheral and central pain processing. In the tendon, pathological changes may exist without pain. This pilot study aimed to compare PPT between individuals with normal tendons and asymptomatic tendon pathology, and between individuals with and without a history of tendon pain. Methods: The patellar, Achilles, and supraspinatus tendons of 128 asymptomatic participants were examined with ultrasound. Global PPT average was determined using a digital algometer at the patellar tendon, quadriceps muscle, L3 spinous process, and deltoid muscle insertion. Participants were separated into three groups: (1) healthy control group (no pathology, no history of pain), (2) tendon pathology at any site without a history of pain, (3) history of tendon pain anywhere. Results: There were 92 controls, seven with asymptomatic pathology and 29 with a history of tendon pain. Asymptomatic tendon pathology at any site (without a history of pain) was associated with globally increased PPTs compared with controls (P < 0.001, pathology N = 7, N = 92 controls). Matched pair analysis remained significant (P < 0.004). A history of tendon pain was associated with globally increased PPTs compared with the control group (P = 0.026). Matched pair analysis was not significant (P = 0.122). Conclusions: Asymptomatic tendon pathology is associated with higher PPTs. These findings point toward central nervous system adaptations but in a novel way-central desensitization. This challenges the validity of conclusions drawn from PPT studies that do not verify normal structure in the control group; artificial inflation of control group data may incorrectly indicate decreased PPTs in the comparison group.

Optimal early active mobilisation protocol after extensor tendon repairs in zones V and VI: A systematic review of literature.

INTRODUCTION: Early mobilisation protocols after repair of extensor tendons in zone V and VI provide better outcomes than immobilisation protocols. This systematic review investigated different early active mobilisation protocols used after extensor tendon repair in zone V and VI. The purpose was to determine whether any one early active mobilisation protocol provides superior results. METHODS: An extensive literature search was conducted to identify articles investigating the outcomes of early active mobilisation protocols after extensor tendon repair in zone V and VI. Databases searched were AMED, Embase, Medline, Cochrane and CINAHL. Studies were included if they involved participants with extensor tendon repairs in zone V and VI in digits 2-5 and described a post-operative rehabilitation protocol which allowed early active metacarpophalangeal joint extension. Study designs included were randomised controlled trials, observational studies, cohort studies and case series. The Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. Two types of early active mobilisation protocols were identified: controlled active motion protocols and relative motion extension splinting protocols. Articles describing relative motion extension splinting protocols were more recent but of lower methodological quality than those describing controlled active motion protocols. Participants treated with controlled active motion and relative motion extension splinting protocols had similar range of motion outcomes, but those in relative motion extension splinting groups returned to work earlier. DISCUSSION: The evidence reviewed suggested that relative motion extension splinting protocols may allow an earlier return to function than controlled active motion protocols without a greater risk of complication.

Comparison of longitudinal sciatic nerve movement with different mobilization exercises: an in vivo study utilizing ultrasound imaging.

STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study using a single-group, within-subjects comparison. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether different types of neural mobilization exercises are associated with differing amounts of longitudinal sciatic nerve excursion measured in vivo at the posterior midthigh region. BACKGROUND: Recent research focusing on the upper limb of healthy subjects has shown that nerve excursion differs significantly between different types of neural mobilization exercises. This has not been examined in the lower limb. It is important to initially examine the influence of neural mobilization on peripheral nerve excursion in healthy people to identify peripheral nerve excursion impairments under conditions in which nerve excursion may be compromised. METHODS: High-resolution ultrasound imaging was used to assess sciatic nerve excursion at the posterior midthigh region. Four different neural mobilization exercises were performed in 31 healthy participants. These neural mobilization exercises used combinations of knee extension and cervical spine flexion and extension. Frame-by-frame cross-correlation analysis of the ultrasound images was used to calculate nerve excursion. A repeated-measures analysis of variance and isolated means comparisons were used for data analysis. RESULTS: Different neural mobilization exercises induced significantly different amounts of sciatic nerve excursion at the posterior midthigh region (P<.001). The slider exercise, consisting of the participant performing simultaneous cervical spine and knee extension, resulted in the largest amount of sciatic nerve excursion (mean ± SD, 3.2 ± 2.0 mm). The amount of excursion during the slider exercise was slightly greater (mean ± SD, 2.6 ± 1.5 mm; P = .002) than it was during the tensioner exercise (simultaneous cervical spine flexion and knee extension). The single-joint neck flexion exercise resulted in the least amount of sciatic nerve excursion at the posterior midthigh (mean ± SD, -0.1 ± 0.1 mm), which was significantly smaller than the other 3 exercises (P<.001). CONCLUSION: These findings are consistent with the results of previous research that has examined median nerve excursion associated with different neural mobilization exercises. Such nerve excursion supports theories of nerve motion associated with cervical spine and extremity movement, as generalizable to the lower limb.

Neural mobilization: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with an analysis of therapeutic efficacy.

Neural mobilization is a treatment modality used in relation to pathologies of the nervous system. It has been suggested that neural mobilization is an effective treatment modality, although support of this suggestion is primarily anecdotal. The purpose of this paper was to provide a systematic review of the literature pertaining to the therapeutic efficacy of neural mobilization. A search to identify randomized controlled trials investigating neural mobilization was conducted using the key words neural mobilisation/mobilization, nerve mobilisation/mobilization, neural manipulative physical therapy, physical therapy, neural/nerve glide, nerve glide exercises, nerve/neural treatment, nerve/neural stretching, neurodynamics, and nerve/neural physiotherapy. The titles and abstracts of the papers identified were reviewed to select papers specifically detailing neural mobilization as a treatment modality. The PEDro scale, a systematic tool used to critique RCTs and grade methodological quality, was used to assess these trials. Methodological assessment allowed an analysis of research investigating therapeutic efficacy of neural mobilization. Ten randomized clinical trials (discussed in 11 retrieved articles) were identified that discussed the therapeutic effect of neural mobilization. This review highlights the lack in quantity and quality of the available research. Qualitative analysis of these studies revealed that there is only limited evidence to support the use of neural mobilization. Future research needs to re-examine the application of neural mobilization with use of more homogeneous study designs and pathologies; in addition, it should standardize the neural mobilization interventions used in the study.