Lunger Alexander, Lunger Lukas, Bach Andrea, Frey Christine, Jandali Abdul Rahman, Sproedt Julia
Universitätsspital Basel, Plastische, Rekonstruktive, Ästhetische und Handchirurgie.
Kantonsspital Winterthur, Klinik für Hand- und Plastische Chirurgie.
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2017 Oct;49(5):297-303. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-117736. Epub 2017 Sep 5.
Volar plate disruption of the proximal interphalangeal joint (PIP) is a common hand injury following finger hyperextension. At our institution, patients presenting with disruptions of the palmar plate (Eaton and Littler types I and II) before 2011 were treated with extension block splinting (group A). Since 2011, all patients with Eaton and Littler types I and II have received buddy taping (group B). The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the respective treatment outcomes. In this retrospective study, we analysed the data of 44 patients visiting our department with volar plate disruption (Eaton and Littler types I and II) from 2009 to 2012. In group A, 23 patients were treated with custom-made extension block splinting in 10 ° flexion, compared with 21 patients treated with buddy taping in group B. Both groups received dorsal night splinting in 10 ° flexion. No statistically significant differences between the two groups were found in regard to treatment duration (p = 0,981), amount of required treatment sessions (p = 0,271), total active motion (TAM) (p = 0,693) and extension deficit (p = 0,404) in the PIP joint at the end of treatment, time until hand therapy was started (p = 0,285) or the Eaton und Littler diagnosis (p = 0,241). In the extension block group (group A), 10 out of 23 (44 %) patients after a median of 9 (4-10) weeks of treatment had an excellent result, 11 (48 %) had a good result, and 2 (8 %) patients had a poor result with a median 90 ° (85-100 °) TAM in the PIP joint and no extension deficit. In group A, all patients received a median of 4 (3-6) treatment sessions. Of those treated with buddy taping (group B), 14 out of 21 (66 %) patients at a median of 6 (4-13) weeks had an excellent result, 6 (29 %) had a good result, and 1 (5 %) patient had a poor result with a median TAM of 95 ° (82,5-100 °) and no extension deficit. In this group, patients received a total of 4 (3-5) treatment sessions. The type of treatment had no significant influence on the Benke and Stableforth outcome (χ2 = 2,385, df = 3, p = 0,304). No patient developed palmar joint instability. No treatment option proved to be superior. We consider buddy taping to be faster, easier and more flexible to use.
近端指间关节(PIP)掌板断裂是手指过度伸展后常见的手部损伤。在我们机构,2011年以前出现掌板断裂(伊顿和利特勒I型和II型)的患者采用伸展阻滞夹板固定治疗(A组)。自2011年以来,所有伊顿和利特勒I型和II型患者均接受了邻指贴扎(B组)。这项回顾性研究的目的是比较各自的治疗结果。在这项回顾性研究中,我们分析了2009年至2012年因掌板断裂(伊顿和利特勒I型和II型)前来我科就诊的44例患者的数据。A组23例患者采用定制的伸展阻滞夹板在10°屈曲位固定,B组21例患者采用邻指贴扎治疗。两组均接受10°屈曲位的背侧夜间夹板固定。两组在治疗持续时间(p = 0.981)、所需治疗次数(p = 0.271)、总主动活动度(TAM)(p = 0.693)、治疗结束时PIP关节的伸展缺损(p = 0.404)、开始手部治疗的时间(p = 0.285)或伊顿和利特勒诊断(p = 0.241)方面均未发现统计学上显著差异。在伸展阻滞组(A组),23例患者中有10例(44%)在中位治疗9(4 - 10)周后结果为优,11例(48%)为良,2例(8%)结果为差,PIP关节的TAM中位值为90°(85 - 100°)且无伸展缺损。在A组,所有患者接受的治疗次数中位值为4(3 - 6)次。在采用邻指贴扎治疗的患者(B组)中,21例患者中有14例(66%)在中位6(4 - 13)周时结果为优,6例(29%)为良,1例(5%)结果为差,TAM中位值为95°(82.5 - 100°)且无伸展缺损。在该组中,患者总共接受4(3 - 5)次治疗。治疗方式对本克和斯特布尔福思结局无显著影响(χ2 = 2.385,自由度 = 3,p = 0.304)。没有患者出现掌侧关节不稳定。没有一种治疗方法被证明更具优势。我们认为邻指贴扎使用起来更快、更简便且更灵活。