Prospective Randomized Trial of Continuous Passive Motion Versus Physical Therapy After Arthroscopic Release of Elbow Contracture

S. O’Driscoll, Jorge Rojas Lievano, M. Morrey, J. Sánchez-Sotelo, D. Shukla, T. S. Olson, J. Fitzsimmons, Anthony M. Vaichinger, Maegan N. Shields
{"title":"Prospective Randomized Trial of Continuous Passive Motion Versus Physical Therapy After Arthroscopic Release of Elbow Contracture","authors":"S. O’Driscoll, Jorge Rojas Lievano, M. Morrey, J. Sánchez-Sotelo, D. Shukla, T. S. Olson, J. Fitzsimmons, Anthony M. Vaichinger, Maegan N. Shields","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.21.00685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Continuous passive motion (CPM) has been used for decades, but we are not aware of any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which CPM has been compared with physical therapy (PT) for rehabilitation following release of elbow contracture. Methods: In this single-blinded, single-center RCT, we randomly assigned patients undergoing arthroscopic release of elbow contracture to a rehabilitation protocol involving either CPM or PT. The primary outcomes were the rate of recovery and the arc of elbow motion (range of motion) at 1 year. The rate of recovery was evaluated by measuring range of motion at 6 weeks and 3 months. The secondary outcomes included other range-of-motion-related outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), flexion strength and endurance, grip strength, and forearm circumference at multiple time points. Results: A total of 24 patients were assigned to receive CPM, and 27 were assigned to receive PT. At 1 year, CPM was superior to PT with regard to the range of motion, with an estimated treatment difference of 9° (95% confidence interval [CI], 3° to 16°; p = 0.007). Similarly, the use of CPM led to a greater range of motion at 6 weeks and 3 months than PT. The percentage of lost motion recovered at 1 year was higher in the CPM group (51%) than in the PT group (36%) (p = 0.01). The probability of restoring a functional range of motion at 1 year was 62% higher in the CPM group than in the PT group (risk ratio for functional range of motion, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.61; p = 0.04). PROM scores were similar in the 2 groups at all time points, except for a difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) elbow function subscale, in favor of CPM, at 6 weeks. The use of CPM decreased swelling and reduced the loss of flexion strength, flexion endurance, and grip strength on day 3, with no between-group differences thereafter. Conclusions: Among patients undergoing arthroscopic release of elbow contracture, those who received CPM obtained a faster recovery and a greater range of motion at 1 year, with a higher chance of restoration of functional elbow motion than those who underwent routine PT. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22579,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery","volume":"33 1","pages":"430 - 440"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.21.00685","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background: Continuous passive motion (CPM) has been used for decades, but we are not aware of any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which CPM has been compared with physical therapy (PT) for rehabilitation following release of elbow contracture. Methods: In this single-blinded, single-center RCT, we randomly assigned patients undergoing arthroscopic release of elbow contracture to a rehabilitation protocol involving either CPM or PT. The primary outcomes were the rate of recovery and the arc of elbow motion (range of motion) at 1 year. The rate of recovery was evaluated by measuring range of motion at 6 weeks and 3 months. The secondary outcomes included other range-of-motion-related outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), flexion strength and endurance, grip strength, and forearm circumference at multiple time points. Results: A total of 24 patients were assigned to receive CPM, and 27 were assigned to receive PT. At 1 year, CPM was superior to PT with regard to the range of motion, with an estimated treatment difference of 9° (95% confidence interval [CI], 3° to 16°; p = 0.007). Similarly, the use of CPM led to a greater range of motion at 6 weeks and 3 months than PT. The percentage of lost motion recovered at 1 year was higher in the CPM group (51%) than in the PT group (36%) (p = 0.01). The probability of restoring a functional range of motion at 1 year was 62% higher in the CPM group than in the PT group (risk ratio for functional range of motion, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.61; p = 0.04). PROM scores were similar in the 2 groups at all time points, except for a difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) elbow function subscale, in favor of CPM, at 6 weeks. The use of CPM decreased swelling and reduced the loss of flexion strength, flexion endurance, and grip strength on day 3, with no between-group differences thereafter. Conclusions: Among patients undergoing arthroscopic release of elbow contracture, those who received CPM obtained a faster recovery and a greater range of motion at 1 year, with a higher chance of restoration of functional elbow motion than those who underwent routine PT. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
关节镜下肘关节挛缩解除后持续被动运动与物理治疗的前瞻性随机试验
背景:持续被动运动(CPM)已经使用了几十年,但我们还没有发现任何随机对照试验(rct)将CPM与物理治疗(PT)在肘关节挛缩解除后的康复中进行比较。方法:在这项单盲、单中心随机对照试验中,我们将接受关节镜下肘关节挛缩松解术的患者随机分配到包括CPM或PT的康复方案中。主要结果是1年内的恢复率和肘关节活动弧度(活动范围)。通过测量6周和3个月时的活动范围来评估恢复率。次要结果包括其他与活动范围相关的结果、患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)、屈曲强度和耐力、握力和多个时间点的前臂周长。结果:共有24名患者被分配接受CPM, 27名患者被分配接受PT。在1年时,CPM在活动范围方面优于PT,估计治疗差异为9°(95%置信区间[CI], 3°至16°;P = 0.007)。同样,CPM的使用在6周和3个月时比PT的活动范围更大。CPM组在1年后恢复的运动损失百分比(51%)高于PT组(36%)(p = 0.01)。CPM组1年后恢复功能活动度的概率比PT组高62%(功能活动度风险比,1.62;95% CI, 1.01 ~ 2.61;P = 0.04)。两组在所有时间点的PROM评分相似,除了6周时美国肩关节外科医生(ASES)肘关节功能亚量表的差异,CPM评分更有利。CPM的使用减少了肿胀,减少了第3天屈曲强度、屈曲耐力和握力的损失,此后各组之间没有差异。结论:在接受关节镜下肘关节挛缩松解术的患者中,接受CPM的患者在1年内恢复更快,活动范围更大,肘关节功能运动恢复的机会比接受常规PT的患者高。证据水平:治疗级。
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