Comparison of Hand Therapy with or without Splinting Postfasciectomy for Dupuytren's Contracture: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 0.3 Q4 SURGERY
Journal of Hand and Microsurgery Pub Date : 2021-03-11 eCollection Date: 2022-10-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1725221
Mohammad Karam, Narvair Kahlar, Ahmad Abul, Shafiq Rahman, Richard Pinder
{"title":"Comparison of Hand Therapy with or without Splinting Postfasciectomy for Dupuytren's Contracture: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Mohammad Karam, Narvair Kahlar, Ahmad Abul, Shafiq Rahman, Richard Pinder","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1725221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to compare the outcomes of hand therapy alone versus additional splinting post fasciectomy for Dupuytren's contracture patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, and a search was performed identifying all relevant studies comparing the two groups. Primary outcome measures included Total active flexion and extension (TAF and TAE) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures included pain intensity, grip strength, and global perceived effect and patients' satisfaction. A random effects model was used for the analysis. Four RCTs were identified enrolling 295 patients. There were no significant differences between hand therapy and splintage groups in terms of all outcomes (both primary and secondary). Splintage offers no added functional benefit to hand therapy alone for post fasciectomy patients with Dupuytren's contracture, however, orthotic regimes may still be applied on an intention to treat basis in those patients who develop an extension deficit postoperatively.</p>","PeriodicalId":45368,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand and Microsurgery","volume":"14 4","pages":"308-314"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10042625/pdf/10-1055-s-0041-1725221.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand and Microsurgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1725221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of hand therapy alone versus additional splinting post fasciectomy for Dupuytren's contracture patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, and a search was performed identifying all relevant studies comparing the two groups. Primary outcome measures included Total active flexion and extension (TAF and TAE) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures included pain intensity, grip strength, and global perceived effect and patients' satisfaction. A random effects model was used for the analysis. Four RCTs were identified enrolling 295 patients. There were no significant differences between hand therapy and splintage groups in terms of all outcomes (both primary and secondary). Splintage offers no added functional benefit to hand therapy alone for post fasciectomy patients with Dupuytren's contracture, however, orthotic regimes may still be applied on an intention to treat basis in those patients who develop an extension deficit postoperatively.

杜普伊特伦挛缩症筋膜切除术后使用或不使用夹板进行手部治疗的比较:系统回顾与元分析》。
本研究旨在比较杜普伊特伦挛缩症患者筋膜切除术后单纯手部治疗与附加夹板治疗的效果。研究人员进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,并对所有相关研究进行了搜索,以确定两组患者的比较结果。主要结果测量包括总主动屈伸(TAF和TAE)和手臂、肩部和手部残疾(DASH)问卷。次要结果指标包括疼痛强度、握力、总体感知效果和患者满意度。分析采用随机效应模型。共确定了四项 RCT 研究,共招募了 295 名患者。就所有结果(主要结果和次要结果)而言,手部治疗组和夹板固定组之间均无明显差异。对于筋膜切除术后的杜普伊特伦挛缩症患者来说,夹板固定与单纯的手部治疗相比,在功能上没有额外的益处,不过,对于术后出现伸展功能障碍的患者,仍可在意向治疗的基础上采用矫形方案。
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
1.00
自引率
25.00%
发文量
39
×
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