Parry Ingrid, Richard Reg, Aden James K, Yelvington Miranda, Ware Linda, Dewey William, Jacobson Keith, Caffrey Julie, Sen Soman
Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis, Sacramento.
US Army Institute of Surgical Research, San Antonio Texas (Retired).
J Burn Care Res. 2019 Jun 21;40(4):377-385. doi: 10.1093/jbcr/irz038.
Standard goniometry is the most commonly used method of assessing the range of motion (ROM) in patients with burn scar contracture. However, standard goniometry was founded on arthrokinematic principles and doesn't consider the cutaneous biomechanical influence between adjacent joint positions and skin pliability to accommodate motion. Therefore, the use of standard goniometry to measure burn scar contracture is called into question. This prospective, multicenter, comparative study investigated the difference between standard goniometry, based on arthrokinematics and a revised goniometry protocol, based on principles of cutaneokinematics and functional positions to measure ROM outcome in burn survivors. Data were collected for 174 joints from 66 subjects at seven burn centers totaling 1044 measurements for comparison. ROM findings using the revised protocol demonstrated significantly more limitation in motion 38.8 ± 15.2% than the standard protocol 32.1 ± 13.4% (p < .0001). Individual analyses of the motions likewise showed significantly more limitation with revised goniometry compared with standard goniometry for 9/11 joint motions. Pearson's correlation showed a significant positive correlation between the percentage of cutaneous functional units scarred and ROM outcome for the revised protocol (R2 = .05, p = .0008) and the Δ between the revised and standard protocols (R2 = .04, p = .0025) but no correlation was found with the standard goniometric protocol (R2 = .015, p = .065). The results of this study support the hypothesis that standard goniometry underestimates the ROM impairment for individuals whose motion is limited by burn scars. Having measurement methods that consider the unique characteristics of skin impairment and the impact on functional positions is an important priority for both clinical reporting and future research in burn rehabilitation.
标准测角法是评估烧伤瘢痕挛缩患者关节活动范围(ROM)最常用的方法。然而,标准测角法基于关节运动学原理,未考虑相邻关节位置之间的皮肤生物力学影响以及皮肤柔韧性对运动的适应性。因此,使用标准测角法测量烧伤瘢痕挛缩受到质疑。这项前瞻性、多中心、对比研究调查了基于关节运动学的标准测角法与基于皮肤运动学原理和功能位的改良测角法在测量烧伤幸存者ROM结果方面的差异。在7个烧伤中心,对66名受试者的174个关节进行了数据收集,共1044次测量用于比较。使用改良方案测得的ROM结果显示,运动受限程度(38.8±15.2%)明显高于标准方案(32.1±13.4%)(p<0.0001)。对各运动的单独分析同样显示,与标准测角法相比,改良测角法在9/11项关节运动中运动受限程度明显更高。Pearson相关性分析显示,改良方案中皮肤功能单位瘢痕化百分比与ROM结果之间存在显著正相关(R2 = 0.05,p = 0.0008),改良方案与标准方案之间的差异(Δ)也存在显著正相关(R2 = 0.04,p = 0.0025),但与标准测角方案无相关性(R2 = 0.015,p = 0.065)。本研究结果支持以下假设:对于运动受烧伤瘢痕限制的个体,标准测角法低估了ROM损伤程度。拥有考虑皮肤损伤独特特征及其对功能位影响的测量方法,对于烧伤康复的临床报告和未来研究而言,都是重要的优先事项。