Flexor tendon repair rehabilitation protocols

A systematic review

Harlan M. Starr, Mark Christopher Snoddy, Kyle E. Hammond, John G. Seiler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically review various flexor tendon rehabilitation protocols and to contrast those using early passive versus early active range of motion. Methods: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to identify articles involving flexor tendon injury, repair, and rehabilitation protocols. All zones of injury were included. Articles were classified based on the protocol used during early rehabilitation. We analyzed clinical outcomes, focusing on incidence of tendon rupture and postoperative functional range of motion. We also analyzed the chronological incidence of published tendon rupture with respect to the protocol used. Results: We identified 170 articles, and 34 met our criteria, with evidence ranging from level I to level IV. Early passive motion, including both Duran and Kleinert type protocols, results included 57 ruptures (4%) and 149 fingers (9%) with decreased range of motion of 1598 tendon repairs. Early active motion results included 75 ruptures (5%) and 80 fingers (6%) with decreased range of motion of 1412 tendon repairs. Early passive range of motion protocols had a statistically significantly decreased risk for tendon rupture but an increased risk for postoperative decreased range of motion compared to early active motion protocols. When analyzing published articles chronologically, we found a statistically significant trend that overall (passive and active rehabilitation) rupture rates have decreased over time. Conclusions: Analyzing all flexor tendon zones and literature of all levels of evidence, our data show a higher risk of complication involving decreased postoperative digit range of motion in the passive protocols and a higher risk of rupture in early active motion protocols. However, modern improvements in surgical technique, materials, and rehabilitation may now allow for early active motion rehabilitation that can provide better postoperative motion while maintaining low rupture rates. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic IV.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Hand Surgery
Volume38
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Tendons
Articular Range of Motion
Rupture
Rehabilitation
Fingers
Tendon Injuries
Incidence
PubMed
Libraries
Databases
Wounds and Injuries

Keywords

  • Early active motion
  • flexor tendon repair
  • postoperative care
  • rehabilitation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Flexor tendon repair rehabilitation protocols : A systematic review. / Starr, Harlan M.; Snoddy, Mark Christopher; Hammond, Kyle E.; Seiler, John G.

In: Journal of Hand Surgery, Vol. 38, No. 9, 01.01.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Starr, Harlan M. ; Snoddy, Mark Christopher ; Hammond, Kyle E. ; Seiler, John G. / Flexor tendon repair rehabilitation protocols : A systematic review. In: Journal of Hand Surgery. 2013 ; Vol. 38, No. 9.
@article{001ef9dd51e9445aba04e4c34e4b7cc2,
title = "Flexor tendon repair rehabilitation protocols: A systematic review",
abstract = "Purpose: To systematically review various flexor tendon rehabilitation protocols and to contrast those using early passive versus early active range of motion. Methods: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to identify articles involving flexor tendon injury, repair, and rehabilitation protocols. All zones of injury were included. Articles were classified based on the protocol used during early rehabilitation. We analyzed clinical outcomes, focusing on incidence of tendon rupture and postoperative functional range of motion. We also analyzed the chronological incidence of published tendon rupture with respect to the protocol used. Results: We identified 170 articles, and 34 met our criteria, with evidence ranging from level I to level IV. Early passive motion, including both Duran and Kleinert type protocols, results included 57 ruptures (4{\%}) and 149 fingers (9{\%}) with decreased range of motion of 1598 tendon repairs. Early active motion results included 75 ruptures (5{\%}) and 80 fingers (6{\%}) with decreased range of motion of 1412 tendon repairs. Early passive range of motion protocols had a statistically significantly decreased risk for tendon rupture but an increased risk for postoperative decreased range of motion compared to early active motion protocols. When analyzing published articles chronologically, we found a statistically significant trend that overall (passive and active rehabilitation) rupture rates have decreased over time. Conclusions: Analyzing all flexor tendon zones and literature of all levels of evidence, our data show a higher risk of complication involving decreased postoperative digit range of motion in the passive protocols and a higher risk of rupture in early active motion protocols. However, modern improvements in surgical technique, materials, and rehabilitation may now allow for early active motion rehabilitation that can provide better postoperative motion while maintaining low rupture rates. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic IV.",
keywords = "Early active motion, flexor tendon repair, postoperative care, rehabilitation",
author = "Starr, {Harlan M.} and Snoddy, {Mark Christopher} and Hammond, {Kyle E.} and Seiler, {John G.}",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.06.025",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
journal = "Journal of Hand Surgery",
issn = "0363-5023",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Flexor tendon repair rehabilitation protocols

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Starr, Harlan M.

AU - Snoddy, Mark Christopher

AU - Hammond, Kyle E.

AU - Seiler, John G.

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To systematically review various flexor tendon rehabilitation protocols and to contrast those using early passive versus early active range of motion. Methods: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to identify articles involving flexor tendon injury, repair, and rehabilitation protocols. All zones of injury were included. Articles were classified based on the protocol used during early rehabilitation. We analyzed clinical outcomes, focusing on incidence of tendon rupture and postoperative functional range of motion. We also analyzed the chronological incidence of published tendon rupture with respect to the protocol used. Results: We identified 170 articles, and 34 met our criteria, with evidence ranging from level I to level IV. Early passive motion, including both Duran and Kleinert type protocols, results included 57 ruptures (4%) and 149 fingers (9%) with decreased range of motion of 1598 tendon repairs. Early active motion results included 75 ruptures (5%) and 80 fingers (6%) with decreased range of motion of 1412 tendon repairs. Early passive range of motion protocols had a statistically significantly decreased risk for tendon rupture but an increased risk for postoperative decreased range of motion compared to early active motion protocols. When analyzing published articles chronologically, we found a statistically significant trend that overall (passive and active rehabilitation) rupture rates have decreased over time. Conclusions: Analyzing all flexor tendon zones and literature of all levels of evidence, our data show a higher risk of complication involving decreased postoperative digit range of motion in the passive protocols and a higher risk of rupture in early active motion protocols. However, modern improvements in surgical technique, materials, and rehabilitation may now allow for early active motion rehabilitation that can provide better postoperative motion while maintaining low rupture rates. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic IV.

AB - Purpose: To systematically review various flexor tendon rehabilitation protocols and to contrast those using early passive versus early active range of motion. Methods: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to identify articles involving flexor tendon injury, repair, and rehabilitation protocols. All zones of injury were included. Articles were classified based on the protocol used during early rehabilitation. We analyzed clinical outcomes, focusing on incidence of tendon rupture and postoperative functional range of motion. We also analyzed the chronological incidence of published tendon rupture with respect to the protocol used. Results: We identified 170 articles, and 34 met our criteria, with evidence ranging from level I to level IV. Early passive motion, including both Duran and Kleinert type protocols, results included 57 ruptures (4%) and 149 fingers (9%) with decreased range of motion of 1598 tendon repairs. Early active motion results included 75 ruptures (5%) and 80 fingers (6%) with decreased range of motion of 1412 tendon repairs. Early passive range of motion protocols had a statistically significantly decreased risk for tendon rupture but an increased risk for postoperative decreased range of motion compared to early active motion protocols. When analyzing published articles chronologically, we found a statistically significant trend that overall (passive and active rehabilitation) rupture rates have decreased over time. Conclusions: Analyzing all flexor tendon zones and literature of all levels of evidence, our data show a higher risk of complication involving decreased postoperative digit range of motion in the passive protocols and a higher risk of rupture in early active motion protocols. However, modern improvements in surgical technique, materials, and rehabilitation may now allow for early active motion rehabilitation that can provide better postoperative motion while maintaining low rupture rates. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic IV.

KW - Early active motion

KW - flexor tendon repair

KW - postoperative care

KW - rehabilitation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883176531&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883176531&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.06.025

DO - 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.06.025

M3 - Article

VL - 38

JO - Journal of Hand Surgery

JF - Journal of Hand Surgery

SN - 0363-5023

IS - 9

ER -