Outcome measurement in adult flexor tendon injury: A systematic review

Evaluation of Outcome Measures of Zone V Flexor Tendon Injury: A Systematic Review

Background  Flexor tendon injury zone V is a multicomponent soft tissue injury involving tendons, nerves, and vessels. Outcome assessment of repair thus requires evaluation of the hand as a whole rather than solely evaluating tendon function. The purpose of this Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses -compliant systematic review was to identify and assess the components of outcome measures used in flexor zone V. Methods  A total of 3,761 studies were retrieved from four databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar). These studies were then screened for inclusion using a validated screening form. Fifteen articles fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included in the review. Subsequently, the included studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Joanna Brigg Institute tool. Results  Out of the 15 studies, 11 were case series, 3 were cross-sectional studies, and 1 was a randomized controlled trial. Out of 15 included studies, 13 were of low risk, whereas 2 studies suggested moderate risk when assessed for methodological quality using the Joanna Brigg Institute tool. Eight outcome measures were identified, out of which the most frequently used were Total Active Motion by the American Society for Surgery of Hand (TAM-ASSH) and Noaman's criteria. Our study found that Noaman's criteria assessed sensory-motor function and finger deformity in addition to the range of motion (ROM), which was found to be assessed by all the other outcome measures. Conclusion  We concluded that although Buck-Gramcko criteria is well suited for the ROM evaluation, Noaman's criteria, a recently developed outcome measure used exclusively for combined injuries in zone V, took into consideration the implications of nerve injury along with tendon function. Although being specifically designed for combined injuries of tendons, nerves, and vessels in zone V, there is a lack of usage of Noaman's in the literature. There still exists a lack of a consistent and appropriate choice of outcome measure.

Relative motion orthoses for early active motion after finger extensor and flexor tendon repairs: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The relative motion (RM) orthosis was introduced over 40 years ago for extensor tendon rehabilitation and more recently applied to flexor tendon repairs.

PURPOSE

We systematically reviewed the evidence for RM orthoses following surgical repair of finger extensor and flexor tendon injuries including indications for use, configuration and schedule of orthosis wear, and clinical outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review searched eight databases and five trial registries, from database inception to January 7, 2022. The protocol was registered prospectively (CRD42020211579). We identified studies describing patients undergoing rehabilitation using RM orthoses after surgical repair of acute tendon injuries of the finger and hand.

RESULTS

For extensor tendon repairs, ten studies, one trial registry and five conference abstracts met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes of 521 patients with injuries in zones IV-VII. Miller's criteria were predominantly used to report range of motion; with 89.6% and 86.9% reporting good or excellent outcomes for extension lag and flexion deficit, respectively. For flexor tendon repairs, one retrospective case series was included reporting outcomes in eight patients following zones I-II repairs. Mean total active motion was 86%. No tendon ruptures were reported due to the orthosis not protecting the repair for either the RME or RMF approaches.

DISCUSSION

Variation was seen in use of RME plus or only, use of night orthoses and orthotic wear schedules, which may be the result of evolution of the RM approach. Since Hirth et al's 2016 scoping review, there are five additional studies, including two RCTs reporting the use of the RM orthosis in extensor tendon rehabilitation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is now good evidence that the RM approach is safe in zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs. Limited evidence currently exists for zones IV and VII extensor and for flexor tendon repairs. Further high-quality clinical studies are needed to demonstrate its safety and efficacy.

Variation in patient information and rehabilitation regimens after flexor tendon repair in the United Kingdom

Introduction

There is clinical uncertainty regarding the optimal method of rehabilitation following flexor tendon repair. Many splint designs and rehabilitation regimens are reported in the literature; however, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any one regimen. The aim of this study was to describe rehabilitation guidelines used in the United Kingdom (UK) following zone I/II flexor tendon repair.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional design, hand units in the UK were invited to complete a short survey and to upload their flexor tendon rehabilitation guidelines and patient information material. Approval was granted by the British Association of Hand Therapists. Data were extracted in duplicate, using a pre-piloted form, and analysed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Thirty-five hand units responded (21%), providing 52 treatment guidelines. Three splinting regimens were described, and all involved early active mobilisation: (i) long dorsal-blocking splint (DBS); (ii) short DBS; and (iii) relative motion flexion splint. Duration of full-time splint wear ranged from 4 to 6 weeks. There were variations in splint design and composition of home exercise programmes, particularly for the long DBS. Where reported, recommended return to driving ranged from 8 to 12 weeks, and return to light work activities ranged from 5 to 10 weeks.

Discussion

Treatment guidelines varied across UK hand therapy departments, suggesting that patients receive differing advice about how to protect, move and use their hand after zone I/II flexor tendon repair. The disparity in splint wear duration, home exercise frequency and prescribed functional restrictions raises potential financial and social implications for patients. Future research should explore rehabilitation burden in addition to clinical outcomes.