I/II 区屈肌腱损伤中克莱因特方案与圣约翰方案的比较:回顾性研究

See Lok Douglas Ho, Ching San Esther Chow
{"title":"I/II 区屈肌腱损伤中克莱因特方案与圣约翰方案的比较:回顾性研究","authors":"See Lok Douglas Ho, Ching San Esther Chow","doi":"10.1177/22104917241256658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: There is no concrete evidence to define the optimal mobilization strategy following zone I/II flexor tendon repair. The Saint John Protocol is an active motion regime which utilizes wrist movement to facilitate better clinical outcomes. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent the conventional Kleinert protocol versus the Saint John protocol. Methods: 20 fingers in the Kleinert group and 18 fingers in the Saint John group were included in this retrospective study. Pain score, range of movement, grip strength, and complications were studied at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Results: The Saint John protocol showed significantly less pain at 6 week (0.167 vs 1.08, P = 0.032) and less flexion contracture at the PIPJ at 6 weeks (3.33 vs 12.25, P = 0.032). Both groups showed similar rerupture rates (5.5% vs 5%). Conclusions: Saint John protocol demonstrated better clinical outcomes while not sacrificing the integrity of repair.","PeriodicalId":517288,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Rehabilitation","volume":"94 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Kleinert versus Saint John protocol in Zone I/II flexor tendon injuries: A retrospective study\",\"authors\":\"See Lok Douglas Ho, Ching San Esther Chow\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/22104917241256658\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: There is no concrete evidence to define the optimal mobilization strategy following zone I/II flexor tendon repair. The Saint John Protocol is an active motion regime which utilizes wrist movement to facilitate better clinical outcomes. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent the conventional Kleinert protocol versus the Saint John protocol. Methods: 20 fingers in the Kleinert group and 18 fingers in the Saint John group were included in this retrospective study. Pain score, range of movement, grip strength, and complications were studied at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Results: The Saint John protocol showed significantly less pain at 6 week (0.167 vs 1.08, P = 0.032) and less flexion contracture at the PIPJ at 6 weeks (3.33 vs 12.25, P = 0.032). Both groups showed similar rerupture rates (5.5% vs 5%). Conclusions: Saint John protocol demonstrated better clinical outcomes while not sacrificing the integrity of repair.\",\"PeriodicalId\":517288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\"94 22\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/22104917241256658\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22104917241256658","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前还没有具体证据来确定 I/II 区屈肌腱修复后的最佳活动策略。圣约翰方案是一种积极的运动机制,它利用腕部运动来促进更好的临床效果。我们的目的是比较接受传统克莱因特方案和圣约翰方案的患者的疗效。方法:这项回顾性研究包括克莱因特组的 20 个手指和圣约翰组的 18 个手指。对术后 6 周和 12 周的疼痛评分、活动范围、握力和并发症进行了研究。结果显示圣约翰方案在 6 周时疼痛明显减轻(0.167 vs 1.08,P = 0.032),6 周时 PIPJ 屈曲挛缩明显减轻(3.33 vs 12.25,P = 0.032)。两组的再骨折率相似(5.5% vs 5%)。结论圣约翰方案在不牺牲修复完整性的同时,显示出更好的临床效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Kleinert versus Saint John protocol in Zone I/II flexor tendon injuries: A retrospective study
Background: There is no concrete evidence to define the optimal mobilization strategy following zone I/II flexor tendon repair. The Saint John Protocol is an active motion regime which utilizes wrist movement to facilitate better clinical outcomes. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent the conventional Kleinert protocol versus the Saint John protocol. Methods: 20 fingers in the Kleinert group and 18 fingers in the Saint John group were included in this retrospective study. Pain score, range of movement, grip strength, and complications were studied at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Results: The Saint John protocol showed significantly less pain at 6 week (0.167 vs 1.08, P = 0.032) and less flexion contracture at the PIPJ at 6 weeks (3.33 vs 12.25, P = 0.032). Both groups showed similar rerupture rates (5.5% vs 5%). Conclusions: Saint John protocol demonstrated better clinical outcomes while not sacrificing the integrity of repair.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Retrospective evaluation of the short-term effectiveness of non-enzymatically isolated stromal vascular fraction cells in patients with knee osteoarthritis Comparison of Kleinert versus Saint John protocol in Zone I/II flexor tendon injuries: A retrospective study Factors affecting decreased walking ability in patients with conservatively treated fragility fracture of the pelvic ring Ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia by orthopaedic surgeons in fixation of distal radius fracture Comparative outcome of different treatment options for acetabulum fractures in elderly individuals—a retrospective analysis of 207 patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1