Hand Therapy最新文献

Introduction: There is clinical uncertainty regarding the optimal method of rehabilitation following flexor tendon repair. Many splint designs and rehabilitation regimens are reported in the literature; however, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any one regimen. The aim of this study was to describe rehabilitation guidelines used in the United Kingdom (UK) following zone I/II flexor tendon repair.

Methods: Using a cross-sectional design, hand units in the UK were invited to complete a short survey and to upload their flexor tendon rehabilitation guidelines and patient information material. Approval was granted by the British Association of Hand Therapists. Data were extracted in duplicate, using a pre-piloted form, and analysed using descriptive statistics.

Results: Thirty-five hand units responded (21%), providing 52 treatment guidelines. Three splinting regimens were described, and all involved early active mobilisation: (i) long dorsal-blocking splint (DBS); (ii) short DBS; and (iii) relative motion flexion splint. Duration of full-time splint wear ranged from 4 to 6 weeks. There were variations in splint design and composition of home exercise programmes, particularly for the long DBS. Where reported, recommended return to driving ranged from 8 to 12 weeks, and return to light work activities ranged from 5 to 10 weeks.

Discussion: Treatment guidelines varied across UK hand therapy departments, suggesting that patients receive differing advice about how to protect, move and use their hand after zone I/II flexor tendon repair. The disparity in splint wear duration, home exercise frequency and prescribed functional restrictions raises potential financial and social implications for patients. Future research should explore rehabilitation burden in addition to clinical outcomes.

Introduction: Both joint mobilisation and immobilisation are thought to be effective in the treatment of first carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) osteoarthritis (OA). The objective of this review was to establish whether either intervention reduced pain and improved pinch strength in people with first CMCJ OA in the short term and assess whether one intervention is superior to the other.

Method: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Seven databases were searched until May 2021. Only RCTs were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system were utilised to rate the evidence. Random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses were used.

Results: Eight studies were included with a total of 417 participants. Mobilisation treatments included manual therapy with or without exercise while immobilisation interventions utilised thumb splinting with several different designs. Very low-quality and low-quality evidence showed that mobilisation led to statistically but not clinically significant improvements in pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.03 to 1; I² = 60%; p = 0.06) and pinch strength (SMD = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.7; I² = 12%; p = 0.3) compared to placebo. Very low-quality and low-quality evidence showed no effect on pain and pinch strength compared to a control or no intervention. Subgroup analyses revealed no difference between interventions.

Discussion: Neither mobilisation nor immobilisation alone led to clinically important improvements in pain or pinch strength in the short term in people with symptomatic first CMCJ OA. Neither therapeutic strategy appeared to be superior.

Introduction: Hand oedema (swelling) is a common consequence of hand trauma or surgery, but there is little agreement on how interventions to treat hand oedema should be delivered in practice. The purpose of this study was to engage a group of self-identified hand therapy experts to develop consensus on how four commonly used oedema management treatments should be implemented, which could be used in clinical practice or future clinical trials.

Method: A web-based Delphi study was conducted with eight volunteer hand therapists who met the pre-defined eligibility criteria for an 'expert' and were members of the British Association of Hand Therapists (BAHT). An a priori level of agreement was set at 75%. Interventions requiring consensus were decided on as a result of a previous national survey of practice and consisted of compression, elevation, massage and kinesiology tape.

Results: A total of 25 items were discussed across 3 rounds. This ranged from 23 items in round 1, to three items in round 3. In round 1, consensus was reached on 7/23 (30%) items. The required 75% consensus was reached on 14 items in round 2 and 1/3 items achieved consensus in round 3. Massage was the only treatment that required a third round.

Discussion: Consensus was reached on intervention description for three of the four modalities including the materials used (what), method of application including duration and frequency (when and how much) and tailoring or modifications. Two questions relating to massage did not reach the required consensus threshold and a majority agreement was accepted. The small panel size is a limitation and may affect the credibility of the consensus reached.

Background: Scar massage is a widely used treatment modality in hand therapy. This intervention is thoroughly discussed in the literature relating to burns rehabilitation, however, the evidence for its use in treating linear scars following surgery is limited.

Purpose of study: To collate the empirical literature on scar massage for the treatment of postsurgical cutaneous scars.

Study design: Scoping review.

Methods: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and the Joanna Briggs Institute were searched from inception to December 2020. Two researchers used a data extraction tool to record key demographic, intervention and outcome data, and to apply the Oxford Levels of Evidence for each study.

Results: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on a combined sample of 1515 participants. Only two papers addressed hand or wrist scars (92 participants). While all studies reported favorable outcomes for scar massage, there were 45 different outcome measures used and a propensity towards non-standardized assessment. Intervention protocols varied from a single session to three treatments daily for 6 months. The results from 13 studies were confounded by the implementation of additional rehabilitation interventions.

Conclusions: The overall findings suggest that while there may be benefits to scar massage in reducing pain, increasing movement and improving scar characteristics; there is a lack of consistent research methods, intervention protocols and outcome measures. This scoping review highlights the heterogenous nature of research into scar massage following surgery and supports the need for further research to substantiate its use in the clinical setting.