Suppr超能文献

关节镜下松解肘关节挛缩后持续被动运动与物理治疗的前瞻性随机试验

Prospective Randomized Trial of Continuous Passive Motion Versus Physical Therapy After Arthroscopic Release of Elbow Contracture.

作者信息

O'Driscoll Shawn W, Lievano Jorge Rojas, Morrey Mark E, Sanchez-Sotelo Joaquin, Shukla Dave R, Olson Tammy S, Fitzsimmons James S, Vaichinger Anthony M, Shields Maegan N

机构信息

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

出版信息

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022 Mar 2;104(5):430-440. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.21.00685.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Continuous passive motion (CPM) has been used for decades, but we are not aware of any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which CPM has been compared with physical therapy (PT) for rehabilitation following release of elbow contracture.

METHODS

In this single-blinded, single-center RCT, we randomly assigned patients undergoing arthroscopic release of elbow contracture to a rehabilitation protocol involving either CPM or PT. The primary outcomes were the rate of recovery and the arc of elbow motion (range of motion) at 1 year. The rate of recovery was evaluated by measuring range of motion at 6 weeks and 3 months. The secondary outcomes included other range-of-motion-related outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), flexion strength and endurance, grip strength, and forearm circumference at multiple time points.

RESULTS

A total of 24 patients were assigned to receive CPM, and 27 were assigned to receive PT. At 1 year, CPM was superior to PT with regard to the range of motion, with an estimated treatment difference of 9° (95% confidence interval [CI], 3° to 16°; p = 0.007). Similarly, the use of CPM led to a greater range of motion at 6 weeks and 3 months than PT. The percentage of lost motion recovered at 1 year was higher in the CPM group (51%) than in the PT group (36%) (p = 0.01). The probability of restoring a functional range of motion at 1 year was 62% higher in the CPM group than in the PT group (risk ratio for functional range of motion, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.61; p = 0.04). PROM scores were similar in the 2 groups at all time points, except for a difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) elbow function subscale, in favor of CPM, at 6 weeks. The use of CPM decreased swelling and reduced the loss of flexion strength, flexion endurance, and grip strength on day 3, with no between-group differences thereafter.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing arthroscopic release of elbow contracture, those who received CPM obtained a faster recovery and a greater range of motion at 1 year, with a higher chance of restoration of functional elbow motion than those who underwent routine PT.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

摘要

背景

持续被动运动(CPM)已应用数十年,但我们尚未知晓有任何随机对照试验(RCT)将CPM与物理治疗(PT)用于肘关节挛缩松解术后的康复治疗并进行比较。

方法

在这项单盲、单中心RCT中,我们将接受肘关节挛缩关节镜松解术的患者随机分配至采用CPM或PT的康复方案组。主要结局为1年时的恢复率和肘关节活动弧度(活动范围)。通过测量6周和3个月时的活动范围来评估恢复率。次要结局包括其他与活动范围相关的结局、患者报告结局测量指标(PROMs)、多个时间点的屈曲力量和耐力、握力以及前臂围度。

结果

共24例患者被分配接受CPM,27例被分配接受PT。在1年时,CPM在活动范围方面优于PT,估计治疗差异为9°(95%置信区间[CI],3°至16°;p = 0.007)。同样,CPM组在6周和3个月时的活动范围比PT组更大。CPM组在1年时恢复的活动丧失百分比(51%)高于PT组(36%)(p = 0.01)。CPM组在1年时恢复功能性活动范围的概率比PT组高62%(功能性活动范围的风险比,1.62;95%CI,1.01至2.61;p = 0.04)。除了在6周时美国肩肘外科医师学会(ASES)肘关节功能子量表存在差异(有利于CPM)外,两组在所有时间点的PROM评分相似。使用CPM在第3天时减轻了肿胀,并减少了屈曲力量、屈曲耐力和握力的丧失,此后两组间无差异。

结论

在接受肘关节挛缩关节镜松解术的患者中,接受CPM的患者在1年时恢复更快、活动范围更大,恢复功能性肘关节活动的机会高于接受常规PT的患者。

证据水平

治疗性I级。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参阅作者指南。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验