Mobilizing orthoses in the management of post-traumatic elbow contractures: A survey of Australian hand therapy practice.

STUDY DESIGN

Mixed-methods survey.

INTRODUCTION

Elbow stiffness and contractures often develop after trauma. There is a lack of evidence on mobilizing orthoses and the factors guiding orthotic prescription.

PURPOSE OF STUDY

To investigate hand therapists' orthotic preferences for varying extension and flexion deficits, and describe the factors affecting orthotic choice for post-traumatic elbow contractures.

METHODS

103 members responded to the electronic survey via the Australian Hand Therapy Association mailing list. Five post-surgical scenarios were used to gather information regarding orthotic preferences, reasons and orthotic protocol: (1) week 8 with 55° extension deficit; (2) week 12 with 30° extension deficit; (3) week 12 with 55° extension deficit; (4) week 8 with flexion limited to 100°; (5) week 12 with limited flexion.

RESULTS

Most responders (89.9%) used mobilizing orthoses, predominantly for extension (88.5%). Orthotic preferences for scenarios 1 to 5 were (1) serial static (78.3%); (2) custom-made three-point static progressive (38.8%); (3) custom-made turnbuckle static progressive (33.8%); (4) "no orthosis" (27.9%); and (5) custom-made hinged (27.1%) and nonhinged (27.1%) dynamic. Choices were based on "effectiveness," "ease for patients to apply and wear," and "ease of fabrication/previous experience/comfortable with design." The recommended daily dosage for extension was 6 to 12 hour.

DISCUSSION

This is the first known study that reflects on the use of mobilizing orthoses in post-traumatic elbows in Australia.

CONCLUSIONS

Mobilizing orthoses are used routinely for post-traumatic elbows in Australia. Extension deficits are managed with serial static and static progressive orthoses at weeks 8 and 12, respectively. Research is needed to assess whether orthotic intervention before 12 weeks is beneficial in reducing contractures.