Austin Gary P, Slamet Marlina, Cameron David, Austin Noelle M
Sacred Heart University, Program in Physical Therapy, Fairfield, Connecticut 06825, USA.
J Hand Ther. 2004 Jul-Sep;17(3):335-43. doi: 10.1197/j.jht.2004.04.003.
Despite claims that the high-profile dynamic mobilization splint design requires less frequent adjustments than the low-profile design, the authors are not aware of biomechanical evidence supporting such claims. The purpose of this study was to reexamine this claim and quantitatively analyze each design as well as the differences between designs with respect to the actual deviation from a 90 degrees angle of applied force for 60 degrees, 30 degrees, 20 degrees, and 10 degrees gains in proximal interphalangeal joint (PIP) extension. Additionally, for 10 degrees, 20 degrees, and 30 degrees gains in PIP extension, the authors determined the corrective and shear forces as a function of the deviation from a 90 degrees angle of applied force for each design, as well as the difference between the designs. Results show that in all instances examined, the actual difference between the designs is quite small. Implications of such findings are discussed along with newly identified relationships of potential utility to the hand therapist.
尽管有说法称引人注目的动态动员夹板设计比低调设计所需的调整频率更低，但作者并未发现支持此类说法的生物力学证据。本研究的目的是重新审视这一说法，并对每种设计进行定量分析，以及分析在近端指间关节（PIP）伸展角度从90度分别增加60度、30度、20度和10度时，各设计之间实际偏离90度施加力角度的差异。此外，对于PIP伸展角度增加10度、20度和30度的情况，作者确定了每种设计的矫正力和剪切力作为偏离90度施加力角度的函数，以及各设计之间的差异。结果表明，在所有检查的情况下，各设计之间的实际差异非常小。本文讨论了这些发现的意义，并介绍了新发现的对手部治疗师可能有用的关系。
