Leni & Peter W. May Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Leni & Peter W. May Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Apr;28(4):e125-e130. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.015. Epub 2019 Jan 11.
Musculoskeletal injuries of the upper extremity are frequently treated with temporary external immobilization. Traditionally, long arm posterior splints have been used to limit flexion/extension of the elbow. However, long arm posterior splints have been observed to fail clinically, necessitating a stronger alternative. In this study, we assessed the biomechanical strength of the long arm posterior splint compared with a new spiral splint design.
One male and one female participant were placed 10 times in long arm posterior splints and 10 times in spiral splints. Both splint types were subjected to a downward mechanical load of 39.2 N (4 kg) and assessed for a change in both flexion/extension and pronation/supination.
There was no significant difference in starting position or starting flexion/extension between the 2 splint designs. Posterior splints allowed significantly greater initial pronation/supination compared with spiral splints. Both splint groups had significant increases in flexion/extension and pronation/supination compared with their starting ranges of motion. There was no significant difference in the change in pronation/supination between the 2 splint groups. Finally, posterior splints allowed a significantly greater change in flexion/extension compared with spiral splints.
Spiral splints offered less initial pronation/supination than long arm posterior splints. Furthermore, spiral splints are able to resist flexion/extension of the elbow after application of a downward mechanical load better than posterior splints, thus suggesting spiral splints are mechanically superior to long arm posterior splints.
上肢肌肉骨骼损伤经常采用临时外部固定治疗。传统上,长臂后夹板用于限制肘部的屈伸。然而,长臂后夹板在临床上已经失效,需要更坚固的替代物。在这项研究中,我们评估了长臂后夹板与新型螺旋夹板设计的生物力学强度。
一名男性和一名女性参与者分别 10 次佩戴长臂后夹板和螺旋夹板,两种夹板类型均承受 39.2 N(4 公斤)的向下机械负荷,并评估其屈伸和旋前/旋后角度的变化。
两种夹板设计的起始位置或初始屈伸角度没有显著差异。与螺旋夹板相比,后夹板允许初始旋前/旋后角度明显更大。与起始活动范围相比,两种夹板组的屈伸和旋前/旋后角度都有显著增加。两种夹板组的旋前/旋后角度变化没有显著差异。最后,与螺旋夹板相比,后夹板允许更大的屈伸角度变化。
与长臂后夹板相比,螺旋夹板初始旋前/旋后角度更小。此外,在施加向下的机械负荷后,螺旋夹板能够更好地抵抗肘部的屈伸,这表明螺旋夹板在机械性能上优于长臂后夹板。