A scoping review on active vs. passive range of motion approaches to treat heterotopic ossification at the elbow

IF 1.3 Q3 REHABILITATION
Patricia Siegel, Shanna Smith, Emily Stark, Cole Burns, Timothy P. Dionne
{"title":"A scoping review on active vs. passive range of motion approaches to treat heterotopic ossification at the elbow","authors":"Patricia Siegel, Shanna Smith, Emily Stark, Cole Burns, Timothy P. Dionne","doi":"10.3389/fresc.2024.1327417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of this scoping review is to synthesize and clarify literature on the effectiveness of active and passive range of motion therapy techniques to address range of motion in people with heterotopic ossification (HO), and to provide guidance to therapists in clinical decision-making based on current evidence.To find articles that included therapeutic interventions to maintain or improve range of motion in people with heterotopic ossification, the authors searched the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and OTSeeker. To ensure that the search was comprehensive, the authors also searched Burns and Trauma, Burns Journal, Burns Open, and the Journal of Hand Therapy. Searches were limited to peer-reviewed articles published in the English language. No publication date limits were set. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database PEDro scale was utilized to measure the validity of the methodological quality of each article.Five studies met the inclusion criteria.. Two studies emphasized that passive range of motion was effective in less than 50% of their subjects, while the other three studies utilized active range of motion only, reporting 50% of patients did not require surgery.There is insufficient evidence to determine effective therapeutic management of HO and the literature that does exist is contradictory and inconclusive. Future research is necessary to determine if any effectiveness of manual therapeutic approaches exists for patients with HO.","PeriodicalId":73102,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2024.1327417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of this scoping review is to synthesize and clarify literature on the effectiveness of active and passive range of motion therapy techniques to address range of motion in people with heterotopic ossification (HO), and to provide guidance to therapists in clinical decision-making based on current evidence.To find articles that included therapeutic interventions to maintain or improve range of motion in people with heterotopic ossification, the authors searched the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and OTSeeker. To ensure that the search was comprehensive, the authors also searched Burns and Trauma, Burns Journal, Burns Open, and the Journal of Hand Therapy. Searches were limited to peer-reviewed articles published in the English language. No publication date limits were set. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database PEDro scale was utilized to measure the validity of the methodological quality of each article.Five studies met the inclusion criteria.. Two studies emphasized that passive range of motion was effective in less than 50% of their subjects, while the other three studies utilized active range of motion only, reporting 50% of patients did not require surgery.There is insufficient evidence to determine effective therapeutic management of HO and the literature that does exist is contradictory and inconclusive. Future research is necessary to determine if any effectiveness of manual therapeutic approaches exists for patients with HO.
关于治疗肘部异位骨化的主动运动范围与被动运动范围方法的范围综述
本范围综述旨在综合并阐明有关主动和被动运动范围治疗技术对解决异位骨化(HO)患者运动范围问题的有效性的文献,并根据现有证据为治疗师的临床决策提供指导。为了找到包含维持或改善异位骨化患者运动范围的治疗干预措施的文章,作者检索了以下数据库:Cochrane 系统综述数据库、PubMed、CINAHL、PsychINFO 和 OTSeeker:为了找到包括维持或改善异位骨化患者运动范围的治疗干预措施的文章,作者检索了以下数据库:Cochrane 系统综述数据库、PubMed、CINAHL、PsychINFO、Web of Science 和 OTSeeker。为确保检索的全面性,作者还检索了《烧伤与创伤》(Burns and Trauma)、《烧伤杂志》(Burns Journal)、《烧伤开放》(Burns Open)和《手部治疗杂志》(Journal of Hand Therapy)。搜索仅限于以英语发表的经同行评审的文章。未设定出版日期限制。物理治疗证据数据库 PEDro 量表用于衡量每篇文章方法学质量的有效性。有两项研究强调被动活动范围对不到50%的受试者有效,而另外三项研究仅使用了主动活动范围,报告称50%的患者不需要手术。未来的研究有必要确定徒手治疗方法对 HO 患者是否有效。
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
CiteScore
1.10
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