Ultrasonographic assessment of flexor tendon mobilization: effect of different protocols on tendon excursion.

BACKGROUND

Different mobilization protocols have been proposed for rehabilitation after hand flexor tendon repair to provide tendon excursion sufficient to prevent adhesions. Several cadaver studies have shown that the position of the neighboring fingers influences tendon excursions of the injured finger. We hypothesized that the positions of adjacent fingers influence the long finger flexor digitorum profundus tendon excursion, measured both absolutely and relative to the surrounding tissue of the tendon.

METHODS

Long finger flexor digitorum profundus tendon excursions and surrounding tissue movement were measured in zone V in eleven healthy subjects during three different rehabilitation protocols and two experimental models: (1) an active four-finger mobilization protocol, (2) a passive four-finger mobilization protocol, (3) a modified Kleinert mobilization protocol, (4) an experimental modified Kleinert flexion mobilization model, and (5) an experimental modified Kleinert extension mobilization model. Tendon excursions were measured with use of a frame-to-frame analysis of high-resolution ultrasound images.

RESULTS

The median absolute long finger flexor digitorum profundus tendon excursions were 23.4, 17.8, 10.0, 13.9, and 7.6 mm for the active four-finger mobilization protocol, the passive four-finger mobilization protocol, the modified Kleinert mobilization protocol, the experimental modified Kleinert flexion mobilization model, and the experimental modified Kleinert extension mobilization model, respectively, and these differences were all significant (p ≤ 0.041). The corresponding relative flexor digitorum profundus tendon excursions were 11.2, 8.5, 7.2, 10.4, and 5.6 mm. Active four-finger mobilization protocol excursions were significantly (p = 0.013) greater than passive four-finger mobilization protocol excursions but were not significantly greater than experimental modified Kleinert flexion mobilization model excursions (p =0.213).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated large and significant differences among the different rehabilitation protocols and experimental models in terms of absolute and relative tendon displacement. More importantly, the present study clearly demonstrated the influence of the position of the adjacent fingers on the flexor tendon displacement of the finger that is mobilized.