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.
J Hand Ther 2021;
33:13-24. [PMID:
30905495 DOI:
10.1016/j.jht.2018.10.003]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2018] [Revised: 09/24/2018] [Accepted: 10/12/2018] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse