Muppavarapu Raghuveer C, Tsytsikova Lyubov, Gottschalk Michael B, Dalwadi Poonam P, Cassidy Charles
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
J Wrist Surg. 2017 Aug;6(3):201-205. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1598025. Epub 2017 Jan 23.
Immobilization is often needed for the treatment of wrist and hand injuries. The current best method of immobilization for several types of injuries has yet to be elucidated with little being reported on the functional differences of each type of immobilization. The purpose of this study is to compare the functional outcome between healthy young volunteers with a 24-hour short arm cast (SAC) versus thumb spica cast (TSC) immobilization. A total of 50 healthy volunteers completed a baseline typing assessment and a Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity functional scoring assessment. Participants in group 1 were randomly initially assigned to a TSC of their dominant hand followed by an SAC, whereas participants in group 2 were randomly initially assigned to a TSC of their nondominant hand followed by an SAC. The volunteers completed the typing assessment and PROMIS assessment at the end of the 24-hour casting period. A total of 50 participants were enrolled in the study with 25 in group 1 and 25 in group 2. There was a 24.3-point difference between the average PROMIS score for participants with SAC compared with participants with TSC (93 vs. 68.7; = 0.0001). There was a significant difference between the typing speed and accuracy of participants with SAC compared with participants with TSC ( = 0.0001). There is a significant difference in functionality of a TSC immobilization versus an SAC immobilization according to the PROMIS functional outcome score and typing speed in a 24-hour casting period. SAC immobilization should be considered to have a possible similar effect in pathologic conditions instead of TSC immobilization given these findings even though a 24-hour period is not enough to provide adequate long-term conclusions. I, prospective comparative study.
手腕和手部损伤的治疗通常需要固定。目前,对于几种损伤类型的最佳固定方法尚未阐明,关于每种固定类型的功能差异报道很少。
本研究的目的是比较健康年轻志愿者使用24小时短臂石膏(SAC)与拇指人字形石膏(TSC)固定后的功能结果。
共有50名健康志愿者完成了基线打字评估和患者报告结果测量信息系统(PROMIS)上肢功能评分评估。第1组参与者最初被随机分配用优势手佩戴TSC,然后佩戴SAC,而第2组参与者最初被随机分配用非优势手佩戴TSC,然后佩戴SAC。志愿者在24小时石膏固定期结束时完成打字评估和PROMIS评估。
共有50名参与者纳入研究,第1组25人,第2组25人。与TSC参与者相比,SAC参与者的平均PROMIS得分存在24.3分的差异(93分对68.7分;P = 0.0001)。与TSC参与者相比,SAC参与者的打字速度和准确性存在显著差异(P = 0.0001)。
根据PROMIS功能结果评分和24小时石膏固定期的打字速度,TSC固定与SAC固定在功能上存在显著差异。鉴于这些发现,即使24小时的时间不足以得出充分的长期结论,在病理情况下,应考虑SAC固定可能具有与TSC固定相似的效果。
I,前瞻性比较研究。