Distal Radius Fracture Rehabilitation

Distal radius fracture (DRF) is arguably the most common upper extremity fracture resulting from a fall accident. These clinical practice guidelines (CPG) were developed to guide all aspects of the management of DRF by physical therapists and other rehabilitation practitioners, such as certified hand therapists. This CPG employed a systematic review methodology to locate, appraise, and synthesize contemporary evidence while developing practice recommendations for determining the prognosis of outcomes, examination, and interventions while managing individuals with DRF. The quality of the primary studies found in the literature search was appraised using standardized tools. The strength of the available evidence for a particular practice domain (e.g., prognosis or intervention) was graded as strong, moderate, weak, or conflicting, where such gradings guided the level of obligation for each practice recommendation. Lastly, the CPG also provided the gaps in the evidence pool for the rehabilitation of DRF that future research efforts can address. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(9):CPG1-CPG78. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.0301.

How should interventions to treat hand oedema be delivered? An online Delphi Consensus Method

Introduction

Hand oedema (swelling) is a common consequence of hand trauma or surgery, but there is little agreement on how interventions to treat hand oedema should be delivered in practice. The purpose of this study was to engage a group of self-identified hand therapy experts to develop consensus on how four commonly used oedema management treatments should be implemented, which could be used in clinical practice or future clinical trials.

Method

A web-based Delphi study was conducted with eight volunteer hand therapists who met the pre-defined eligibility criteria for an 'expert' and were members of the British Association of Hand Therapists (BAHT). An a priori level of agreement was set at 75%. Interventions requiring consensus were decided on as a result of a previous national survey of practice and consisted of compression, elevation, massage and kinesiology tape.

Results

A total of 25 items were discussed across 3 rounds. This ranged from 23 items in round 1, to three items in round 3. In round 1, consensus was reached on 7/23 (30%) items. The required 75% consensus was reached on 14 items in round 2 and 1/3 items achieved consensus in round 3. Massage was the only treatment that required a third round.

Discussion

Consensus was reached on intervention description for three of the four modalities including the materials used (what), method of application including duration and frequency (when and how much) and tailoring or modifications. Two questions relating to massage did not reach the required consensus threshold and a majority agreement was accepted. The small panel size is a limitation and may affect the credibility of the consensus reached.

Effectiveness of manual therapy in patients with distal radius fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT) for functional outcomes in patients with distal radius fracture (DRF).

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in the Medline, Central, Embase, PEDro, Lilacs, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases. The eligibility criteria for selecting studies included randomized clinical trials that included MT techniques with or without other therapeutic interventions in functional outcomes, such as wrist or upper limb function, pain, grip strength, and wrist range of motion in patients older than 18 years with DRF.

RESULTS

Eight clinical trials met the eligibility criteria; for the quantitative synthesis, six studies were included. For supervised physiotherapy plus joint mobilization versus home exercise program at 6 weeks follow-up, the mean difference (MD) for wrist flexion was 7.1 degrees (p = 0.20), and extension was 11.99 degrees (p = 0.16). For exercise program plus mobilization with movement versus exercise program at 12 weeks follow-up, the PRWE was -10.2 points (p = 0.02), the DASH was -9.86 points (p = 0.0001), and grip strength was 3.9 percent (p = 0.25). For conventional treatment plus manual lymph drainage versus conventional treatment, for edema the MD at 3-7 days was -14.58 ml (p = 0.03), at 17-21 days -17.96 ml (p = 0.009), at 33-42 days -15.34 ml (p = 0.003), and at 63-68 days -13.97 ml (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

There was very low to high evidence according to the GRADE rating. Adding mobilization with movement and manual lymphatic drainage showed statistically significant differences in wrist, upper limb function, and hand edema in patients with DRF.

Edema assessment and management practice patterns among hand therapists: Survey research

STUDY DESIGN

Survey research.

INTRODUCTION

Recently, the lymphatic system's role in edema management has been reported; however, it is unclear how this evidence has translated into hand therapy practice.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Survey research was performed to explore edema education and management.

METHODS

A 22-question survey containing questions related to edema education and practice was administered to members of the American Society of Hand Therapists. Demographic data were obtained. Frequencies were examined using Chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

A total of 436 members responded to the survey (92% occupational therapists [OTs]; 6% physical therapists [PTs]). Most hand therapists received edema education through on-the-job training and, or continuing education. PTs were more likely to learn the difference between acute, subacute, chronic edema (P < .01; 36% PTs, 17% OTs) and the role of the lymphatic system in edema management (P < .002; 36% PTs, 14% OTs) in entry-level education compared to OTs. OTs with an MS or OTD were more likely to learn the difference between acute, subacute, chronic edema (P < .001; 23% OTD, 24% MS, 10% BS) and the role of the lymphatic system in edema management (P < .004; 19% OTD, 19% MS, 7% BS) in entry-level education than BS-trained OTs. Duration and feel were common ways therapists assessed and identified differences in edema. Many therapists acknowledged the role of the lymphatic system in edema reduction, but responses lacked specificity.

CONCLUSION

The survey results suggest most hand therapists learn edema management outside of academic programs, although this may be changing in OT with advancement of the entry-level degree.

The use of manual lymphatic drainage on clinical presentation of musculoskeletal injuries: A systematic review

The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review on the applicability of manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) in improving edema and clinical presentation postmusculoskeletal injuries. A review of the literature was performed in CINAHL, MANTIS, Medline, SPORTDiscus and Google Scholar, yielding a total of 8 articles. Half of the studies showed a strong quality assessment. Results from our work support the use of MLD for reducing edema reduction and pain as well as enhancing range of motion and patients' quality of life and satisfaction. Further research is needed to apply these findings to a broader range of musculoskeletal injuries and conditions.

Lymphatic treatments after orthopedic surgery or injury: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Orthopedic injuries in conjunction with extensive damage to tissues, bones and blood vessels, usually require a long recovery. Associated consequences are pain, movement limitations, decreased function and occasionally, prolonged edema, which can delay or interfere with the healing process. Lymphatic and compression therapy have become increasingly common, intending to reduce edema and pain, thus, promoting the recovery process.

AIMS

To examine the efficacy of methods commonly used to reduce edema after orthopedic injury or surgery, i.e. decongestive therapy, manual lymphatic drainage, and compression bandaging.

METHODS

English literature search was undertaken in January 2019, in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PEDro.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

randomized controlled or quasi-controlled trials in adults who have edema or pain after recent limb trauma or surgery. Two independent assessors rated study quality and risk of bias using the PRISMA recommendations and PEDro score.

RESULTS

We evaluated 71 papers. After excluding duplicated and irrelevant papers, 15 met the eligibility criteria (6 on lymphatic treatment and 9 on compression). Quality of papers ranged from 3 to 7 on PEDro score; of them, 13 were 1b Level of Evidence and two were 1c.

CONCLUSION

After elective surgeries, when the significant edema appears or persists beyond recovery time, complex decongestive therapy and manual edema mobilization should be recommended in addition to conventional physical therapy. In acute injuries such as ankle or distal radius fractures, lymphatic treatments and compression bandaging should be considered as part of the therapeutic protocol. Nine studies evaluated different compression modalities found that only multilayer and long stretch compression significantly reduce edema.

Effectiveness of edema management techniques for subacute hand edema: A systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

INTRODUCTION

Prolonged hand edema can have detrimental effects on range of motion and function. There is no consensus on how best to manage traumatic subacute edema. This is the first systematic review which examines the clinical effectiveness of edema treatments on hand volume.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the evidence of effectiveness of treatments for sub-acute hand edema.

METHODS

A literature search of AMED, CINAHL, Embase, and OVID MEDLINE (from inception to August 2015) was undertaken. Studies were selected if they met the following inclusion criteria: randomized controlled or controlled trials in adults who have subacute swelling after a recent upper limb musculoskeletal trauma or cerebral vascular attack or after surgery. Two independent assessors rated study quality and risk of bias using the 24-point MacDermid Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale (SEQES).

RESULTS

Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Study quality ranged from 23 to 41 out of 48 points on the SEQES. A total of 16 edema interventions were evaluated across the studies. Due to heterogeneity of the patient characteristics, interventions, and outcomes assessed, it was not possible to pool the results from all studies. Therefore, a narrative best evidence synthesis was undertaken. There is low to moderate quality evidence with limited confidence in the effect estimate to support the use of manual edema mobilization methods in conjunction with standard therapy to reduce problematic hand edema.

CONCLUSION

Manual edema mobilization techniques should be considered in conjunction with conventional therapies, in cases of excessive edema or when the edema has not responded to conventional treatment alone; however, manual edema mobilization is not advocated as a routine intervention.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2b.

Rehabilitation for distal radial fractures in adults

BACKGROUND

Fracture of the distal radius is a common clinical problem, particularly in older people with osteoporosis. There is considerable variation in the management, including rehabilitation, of these fractures. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of rehabilitation interventions in adults with conservatively or surgically treated distal radial fractures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014; Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, OTseeker and other databases, trial registers, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles. We did not apply any language restrictions. The date of the last search was 12 January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs evaluating rehabilitation as part of the management of fractures of the distal radius sustained by adults. Rehabilitation interventions such as active and passive mobilisation exercises, and training for activities of daily living, could be used on their own or in combination, and be applied in various ways by various clinicians.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently screened and selected trials, and reviewed eligible trials. We contacted study authors for additional information. We did not pool data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 trials, involving 1269 mainly female and older patients. With few exceptions, these studies did not include people with serious fracture or treatment-related complications, or older people with comorbidities and poor overall function that would have precluded trial participation or required more intensive treatment. Only four of the 23 comparisons covered by these 26 trials were evaluated by more than one trial. Participants of 15 trials were initially treated conservatively, involving plaster cast immobilisation. Initial treatment was surgery (external fixation or internal fixation) for all participants in five trials. Initial treatment was either surgery or plaster cast alone in six trials. Rehabilitation started during immobilisation in seven trials and after post-immobilisation in the other 19 trials. As well as being small, the majority of the included trials had methodological shortcomings and were at high risk of bias, usually related to lack of blinding, that could affect the validity of their findings. Based on GRADE criteria for assessment quality, we rated the evidence for each of the 23 comparisons as either low or very low quality; both ratings indicate considerable uncertainty in the findings.For interventions started during immobilisation, there was very low quality evidence of improved hand function for hand therapy compared with instructions only at four days after plaster cast removal, with some beneficial effects continuing one month later (one trial, 17 participants). There was very low quality evidence of improved hand function in the short-term, but not in the longer-term (three months), for early occupational therapy (one trial, 40 participants), and of a lack of differences in outcome between supervised and unsupervised exercises (one trial, 96 participants).Four trials separately provided very low quality evidence of clinically marginal benefits of specific interventions applied in addition to standard care (therapist-applied programme of digit mobilisation during external fixation (22 participants); pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) during cast immobilisation (60 participants); cyclic pneumatic soft tissue compression using an inflatable cuff placed under the plaster cast (19 participants); and cross-education involving strength training of the non-fractured hand during cast immobilisation with or without surgical repair (39 participants)).For interventions started post-immobilisation, there was very low quality evidence from one study (47 participants) of improved function for a single session of physiotherapy, primarily advice and instructions for a home exercise programme, compared with 'no intervention' after cast removal. There was low quality evidence from four heterogeneous trials (30, 33, 66 and 75 participants) of a lack of clinically important differences in outcome in patients receiving routine physiotherapy or occupational therapy in addition to instructions for home exercises versus instructions for home exercises from a therapist. There was very low quality evidence of better short-term hand function in participants given physiotherapy than in those given either instructions for home exercises by a surgeon (16 participants, one trial) or a progressive home exercise programme (20 participants, one trial). Both trials (46 and 76 participants) comparing physiotherapy or occupational therapy versus a progressive home exercise programme after volar plate fixation provided low quality evidence in favour of a structured programme of home exercises preceded by instructions or coaching. One trial (63 participants) provided very low quality evidence of a short-term, but not persisting, benefit of accelerated compared with usual rehabilitation after volar plate fixation.For trials testing single interventions applied post-immobilisation, there was very low quality evidence of no clinically significant differences in outcome in patients receiving passive mobilisation (69 participants, two trials), ice (83 participants, one trial), PEMF (83 participants, one trial), PEMF plus ice (39 participants, one trial), whirlpool immersion (24 participants, one trial), and dynamic extension splint for patients with wrist contracture (40 participants, one trial), compared with no intervention. This finding applied also to the trial (44 participants) comparing PEMF versus ice, and the trial (29 participants) comparing manual oedema mobilisation versus traditional oedema treatment. There was very low quality evidence from single trials of a short-term benefit of continuous passive motion post-external fixation (seven participants), intermittent pneumatic compression (31 participants) and ultrasound (38 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence from RCTs is insufficient to establish the relative effectiveness of the various interventions used in the rehabilitation of adults with fractures of the distal radius. Further randomised trials are warranted. However, in order to optimise research effort and engender the large multicentre randomised trials that are required to inform practice, these should be preceded by research that aims to identify priority questions.

Variation in the Use of Therapy following Distal Radius Fractures in the United States

Background:

Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are one of the most common injuries among the elderly, resulting in significant expense and disability. The specific aims of this study are (1) to examine rates of therapy following DRFs and (2) to identify those factors that influence utilization of therapy and time span between DRF treatment and therapy among a national cohort of elderly patients.

Methods:

We examined national use of physical and occupational therapy among all Medicare beneficiaries who suffered DRFs between January 1, 2007, and October 1, 2007, and assessed the effect of treatment, patient-related, and surgeon-related factors on utilization of therapy.

Results:

Overall, 20.6% of patients received either physical or occupational therapy following DRF. Use of therapy varied by DRF treatment, and patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation were more likely to receive therapy compared with patients who received closed reduction. Patients who received open reduction and internal fixation were also referred to therapy earlier compared with patients who received external fixation, percutaneous pinning, and closed reduction. Surgeon specialization is associated with greater use of postoperative therapy. Patient predictors of therapy use include younger age, female sex, higher socioeconomic status, and fewer comorbidity conditions.

Conclusion:

Use of therapy following DRF varies significantly by both patient- and surgeon-related factors. Identifying patients who benefit from postinjury therapy can allow for better resource utilization following these common injuries.

A randomized clinical controlled study comparing the effect of modified manual edema mobilization treatment with traditional edema technique in patients with a fracture of the distal radius

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION

Manual edema mobilization (MEM) is a method of edema reduction based on the lymphatic system's ability to drain and resolve subacute edema.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To investigate the effect of a modified MEM approach and compare it with a traditional edema technique in patients with subacute hand/arm edema after a distal radius fracture.

METHOD

The patients were randomized into one of two treatment groups: a group that received traditional edema treatment and a group that received a modified MEM treatment. All patients were examined for edema, active range of motion (AROM), pain, and activities of daily living (ADL). The number of edema sessions and the number of all sessions were counted.

RESULT

No statistically significant changes were observed in edema reduction, AROM, pain, and ADL at six and nine weeks between the treatment groups. A statistically significant improvement was observed in ADL after three weeks after inclusion (p=0.03) in the modified MEM group compared with the control group. Furthermore, fewer edema treatment sessions were needed (p=0.03) in the modified MEM group. At six weeks, we observed a difference between the two groups' needs for further edema treatment (p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

Neither the traditional nor the modified MEM treatment program was superior in terms of edema reduction, although the modified MEM resulted in fewer sessions to decrease subacute hand/arm edema compared with using traditional edema reduction techniques in patients after distal radius fracture.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

An advice and exercise program has some benefits over natural recovery after distal radius fracture: a randomised trial

QUESTION

Does an advice and exercise program improve outcome for adults following distal radius fracture?

DESIGN

Randomised trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention-to-treat analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-six patients whose fracture had been managed with pins and/or cast.

INTERVENTION

The experimental group received a physiotherapist-directed program of advice and exercises. The control group did not receive any physiotherapy intervention.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was wrist extension (measured with a goniometer). Secondary outcomes were the other wrist ranges of motion (measured with a goniometer), grip strength (measured with a dynamometer), pain, and activity limitations (measured with questionnaires). These outcomes were measured initially, then three and six weeks later. Participants also rated their satisfaction with physiotherapy intervention at Week 6.

RESULTS

No difference was found between groups for the primary outcome of wrist extension (mean difference 6 deg, 95% CI -3 to 14), nor for the secondary outcomes of other range of motion data and grip strength. The difference between groups for pain was -16 points out of 100 (95% CI -27 to -5) at Week 3, and -14 points (95% CI -25 to -3) points at Week 6, and for activity was -13 points out of 100 (95% CI -24 to -2) at Week 3; in favour of the experimental group. The experimental group was also more satisfied with the amount of physiotherapy intervention.

CONCLUSION

An advice and exercise program provided some additional benefits over no intervention for adults following distal radius fracture.