Rehabilitation after surgery for flexor tendon injuries in the hand

• Published in: Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2004-10 (4), p.CD003979-CD003979
• Main Authors: Thien, T B, Becker, J H, Theis, J C
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Finger Injuries - rehabilitation; Finger Injuries - surgery; Hand Injuries - rehabilitation; Hand Injuries - surgery; Humans; Postoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tendon Injuries - rehabilitation; Tendon Injuries - surgery
• ISSN: 1469-493X

Postoperative rehabilitation of the flexor tendons in the hand consists of a short period of immobilisation while pain and swelling diminish, followed by progressive mobilisation to maximize the range of motion of the affected fingers. By altering the time of immobilisation and the manner of subsequent mobilisation different rehabilitation regimes are created. To determine, with evidence from randomised controlled trials, the optimal rehabilitation strategy after surgery for flexor tendon injuries in the hand. We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialised register (November 2002), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2002), EMBASE (1988 to November 2002), CINAHL (1982 to October 2002), CURRENT CONTENTS (1993 to October 2002), PEDro - The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (http://ptwww.cchs.usyd.edu.au/pedro/ accessed 30/10/2002) and reference lists of articles. All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions for rehabilitation after surgery of flexor tendon injuries in the hand after surgery. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality, using a 10 item scale, and extracted data where possible. Additional information was sought from trialists when required. Due to the lack of extractable data and the variety of interventions used, pooling was not attempted. Where possible relative risks and 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences and 95 per cent confidence intervals calculated for continuous outcomes. Six trials, including three reported only in abstracts, with a total of 464 participants were included. Data were not pooled. One trial compared continuous passive motion (CPM) with controlled intermittent passive motion (CIPM) and found a significant difference in mean active motion favouring CPM (WMD 19.00 degrees, 95% CI 15.11 to 22.89). One trial compared a shortened passive flexion/active extension programme with a normal passive flexion/active extension mobilisation programme, and reported (without data) a significant reduction in absence from work of 2.1 weeks in favour of the shortened programme. Other trials compared active flexion with rubber band traction, early controlled active mobilisation with early controlled passive mobilisation and dynamic splintage versus static splintage. No trials found significant differences in overall functioning or complication rate. Con