Article
A prospective randomized controlled trial of controlled passive mobilization vs. place and active hold exercises after zone 2 flexor tendon repair
Search Medline for
Authors
Published: | February 6, 2020 |
---|
Outline
Text
Clinical issue/s: The rehabilitation program after flexor tendon repair of zone II laceration varies.
We designed a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of controlled passive mobilization (modified Kleinert) vs. Place and active hold exercises after zone 2-flexor tendon repair by two-strand suture (Modified kessler).
Clinical reasoning: Based on the rationale that active motion creates much greater excursion of the flexor tendon within the sheath than passive motion, and holding the repaired tendon actively can have similar advantages as active flexing the repaired tendon with less tension.
We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial to compare controlled passive mobilization (CPM) and place and active hold exercises (PAH) in patients with zone 2 flexor tendon lacerations repaired with a two-stran repair.
We tested the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the average total active motion (TAM) between PAH and CPM cohorts eight weeks after repair.
Innovative, analytical or new approach: Sixty-four fingers in 54 patients with zone 2 flexor tendon modified Kessler repairs were enrolled in a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing place and active hold exercises to controlled passive mobilization (modified Kleinert).
The primary outcome measure was total active motion eight weeks after repair as measured by an independent and blinded therapist.
Contribution to advancing HT practice: The place and active hold protocol has achieved motion similar to most studies reporting fully active motion.
PAH is relatively easy to learn and can be used with conventional suture techniques.