Outcome of Early Active and Late Mobilization following Flexor Tendon Repair in Zone ΙΙ of Hand

Krishna Priya Das, R. M. Chowdhury, Mamunur Rashid, MD Moniruzzaman, Sk Murad Ahmed, Ali Noor Polas, N. K. Datta
{"title":"Outcome of Early Active and Late Mobilization following Flexor Tendon Repair in Zone ΙΙ of Hand","authors":"Krishna Priya Das, R. M. Chowdhury, Mamunur Rashid, MD Moniruzzaman, Sk Murad Ahmed, Ali Noor Polas, N. K. Datta","doi":"10.3329/bmj.v51i3.70141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The functional outcome of flexor tendon injury after repair depends on multiple factors. Postoperative rehabilitation protocol plays an important role after a good repair for better functional outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome between early active mobilizations versus late mobilizations after flexor tendon repair in zone-II of hand. This Quasi-experimental (Nonrandomized control trial) was conducted from July 2018 to June 2021. Total 30 patients of flexor tendon injury in Zone-II of hand presented within 3 weeks were divided into two equal groups according to envelope technique, late mobilization (No intervention group) group- A and early active mobilization (Intervention group) group-B. All the flexor tendons were repaired with polypropylene 4/0 double strand score sutures and 6/0 epitendinous continuous sutures. In group-A mobilization started after 3 weeks and in group–B, intervention was given by active mobilization which was started at the day of operation. Buck Gramcko functional criteria and Louisville system were used for assessment of final result after 6 months of surgery. Male was predominant, M: F ratio was 3.3:1. Mean age of the respondent was 32.53±9.86 years. Dominant (Right) hand involvement was 70%. Student and service holder were the common involved group. Nearly three fourth (73%) of them had sharp cutting injury. More than half (53.10%) of the injuries were found in ring and little fingers followed by index (20.30%), middle (20.30%) and thumb (6.30%). Mean time interval between injury and operation was 11 days. Adhesion formation was the commonest complication that was 40% in group A and 20% in group B. More satisfactory outcome (87.50%) was found in group- B (Intervention group), that is patients who received early active mobilization; where the level of satisfactory outcome was less (62.50%) in group-A (Non-intervention group), that is patients who received late mobilization (p-value was significant <0.05). Early active mobilization following repair of flexor tendon in zone II of hand ensures better functional outcome with minimum complication compared to late mobilization.\nBangladesh Med J. 2022 Sept; 51(3): 28-36","PeriodicalId":8711,"journal":{"name":"Bangladesh Medical Journal","volume":"29 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bangladesh Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3329/bmj.v51i3.70141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The functional outcome of flexor tendon injury after repair depends on multiple factors. Postoperative rehabilitation protocol plays an important role after a good repair for better functional outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome between early active mobilizations versus late mobilizations after flexor tendon repair in zone-II of hand. This Quasi-experimental (Nonrandomized control trial) was conducted from July 2018 to June 2021. Total 30 patients of flexor tendon injury in Zone-II of hand presented within 3 weeks were divided into two equal groups according to envelope technique, late mobilization (No intervention group) group- A and early active mobilization (Intervention group) group-B. All the flexor tendons were repaired with polypropylene 4/0 double strand score sutures and 6/0 epitendinous continuous sutures. In group-A mobilization started after 3 weeks and in group–B, intervention was given by active mobilization which was started at the day of operation. Buck Gramcko functional criteria and Louisville system were used for assessment of final result after 6 months of surgery. Male was predominant, M: F ratio was 3.3:1. Mean age of the respondent was 32.53±9.86 years. Dominant (Right) hand involvement was 70%. Student and service holder were the common involved group. Nearly three fourth (73%) of them had sharp cutting injury. More than half (53.10%) of the injuries were found in ring and little fingers followed by index (20.30%), middle (20.30%) and thumb (6.30%). Mean time interval between injury and operation was 11 days. Adhesion formation was the commonest complication that was 40% in group A and 20% in group B. More satisfactory outcome (87.50%) was found in group- B (Intervention group), that is patients who received early active mobilization; where the level of satisfactory outcome was less (62.50%) in group-A (Non-intervention group), that is patients who received late mobilization (p-value was significant <0.05). Early active mobilization following repair of flexor tendon in zone II of hand ensures better functional outcome with minimum complication compared to late mobilization. Bangladesh Med J. 2022 Sept; 51(3): 28-36
手部ΙΙ区屈肌腱修复术后早期主动活动和后期活动的结果
屈肌腱损伤修复后的功能效果取决于多种因素。为了获得更好的功能结果,术后康复方案在良好的修复后发挥着重要作用。本研究旨在比较手部二区屈肌腱修复术后早期主动活动与晚期活动的效果。这项准实验(非随机对照试验)于2018年7月至2021年6月进行。共有 30 名在 3 周内就诊的手部 Zone-II 区屈肌腱损伤患者,根据包膜技术分为两个相同的组,即晚期动员(无干预组)- A 组和早期主动动员(干预组)- B 组。所有屈肌腱均采用聚丙烯 4/0 双股缝合线和 6/0 表腱连续缝合线进行修复。A 组在 3 周后开始活动,B 组在手术当天就开始积极活动。巴克-格拉姆科功能标准和路易斯维尔系统用于评估手术 6 个月后的最终结果。受试者以男性为主,男女比例为 3.3:1。平均年龄为(32.53±9.86)岁。右手占 70%。学生和服务人员是常见的参与群体。近四分之三(73%)的受访者有锐器割伤。一半以上(53.10%)的损伤发生在无名指和小指,其次是食指(20.30%)、中指(20.30%)和拇指(6.30%)。受伤与手术之间的平均时间间隔为 11 天。B组(干预组)(即接受早期积极活动的患者)的满意度较高(87.50%),而A组(非干预组)(即接受后期活动的患者)的满意度较低(62.50%)(P值显著小于0.05)。孟加拉医学杂志》,2022 年 9 月;51(3):28-36
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信