Tarbhai Kauser, Hannah Susan, von Schroeder Herbert P
University of Toronto Hand Program, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J Hand Surg Am. 2012 Feb;37(2):243-9, 249.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.10.038. Epub 2011 Dec 20.
To compare the effectiveness of 2 splint designs in treating trigger finger.
This prospective, randomized study of 30 subjects evaluated splinting efficacy for trigger finger, comparing 2 splint designs: a custom metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint blocking splint and a distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint blocking splint. We evaluated range of motion, grip strength, severity and frequency of triggering, functional impact, and performance measure scores. Subjects recorded frequency of splint use, splint comfort, and functional impact of the splint. We undertook statistical analysis of splint effectiveness before and after treatment and of differences between the 2 splint groups. We evaluated qualitative data to identify trends in subjective preference toward splint design.
Both groups showed quick and significant improvement of triggering; however, the MCP joint blocking splint was successful in providing at least partial relief of triggering and pain in 10 of 13 trigger finger subjects, whereas the DIP joint blocking splint provided at least partial relief of triggering and pain in 7 of 15 subjects after 6 weeks of treatment. Data showed statistically significant improvement in both groups at 6 weeks, which was maintained in a minority of the cohort for 1 year. There was little difference between the 2 splint groups for impact on function. Subjects who wore the MCP joint blocking splint reported higher rates of comfort compared with those who wore the DIP joint blocking splint.
Subject comfort with the MCP joint blocking splint allowed for longer periods of usage. Selection of a splint design depends on clinical presentation, vocation, and leisure activities. Initiating conservative treatment with the MCP joint blocking splint has value for patients with trigger finger and positive outcomes in 77% of subjects, whereas use of the DIP joint splint was effective in about half of subjects.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic I.
比较两种夹板设计治疗扳机指的有效性。
这项针对30名受试者的前瞻性随机研究评估了夹板治疗扳机指的疗效,比较了两种夹板设计:定制的掌指(MCP)关节阻滞夹板和远侧指间(DIP)关节阻滞夹板。我们评估了活动范围、握力、弹响的严重程度和频率、功能影响以及性能测量得分。受试者记录夹板使用频率、夹板舒适度以及夹板的功能影响。我们对治疗前后夹板的有效性以及两个夹板组之间的差异进行了统计分析。我们评估了定性数据,以确定对夹板设计的主观偏好趋势。
两组的弹响均迅速且显著改善;然而,MCP关节阻滞夹板成功地使13名扳机指受试者中的10名至少部分缓解了弹响和疼痛,而DIP关节阻滞夹板在治疗6周后使15名受试者中的7名至少部分缓解了弹响和疼痛。数据显示两组在6周时均有统计学上显著的改善,少数受试者在1年内维持了这种改善。两种夹板组对功能的影响几乎没有差异。佩戴MCP关节阻滞夹板的受试者报告的舒适度高于佩戴DIP关节阻滞夹板的受试者。
受试者对MCP关节阻滞夹板的舒适度使其使用时间更长。夹板设计的选择取决于临床表现、职业和休闲活动。对扳机指患者开始使用MCP关节阻滞夹板进行保守治疗具有价值,77%的受试者有积极结果,而使用DIP关节夹板约一半的受试者有效。
研究类型/证据水平:治疗性I级。