Rehabilitation of hand fractures with robotic orthosis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28957/rcmfr.v29n1a2Keywords:
Hand fractures, Exoskeleton, Robotic orthosis, DASH score, Visual analogue scale (VAS)Abstract
Introduction: The present study is a series of clinical cases that describes the results in the treatment of hand fractures, by the F-CIBER-HAND research group in Manizales - Colom- bia; integrates the surgical management of the fracture, conventional rehabilitation and robotic orthosis rehabilitation.
Materials and methods: Ten (10) patients with hand fractures were selected, who presented clinical signs of joint stiffness after two weeks postoperatively, they underwent physical therapy and passive mobilization with the PRO-Dix robotic orthosis.
Results: All patients had functional improvement of the hand according to the DASH score, decreased pain intensity according to VAS, and recovered joint mobility arch according to goniometry; In addition, they returned to the activities of daily life that they performed before to the fracture.
Discussion: Randomized clinical trials are required to determine the advantages of the rehabilitation protocol that includes robotic orthosis versus conventional therapy exclusively.
Conclusions: Passive mobilization with robotic orthosis is an effective complement of physical therapy in postsurgical patients of hand fractures; it helps in the recovery of articular mobility arches and decreasing joint stiffness. Level of evidence: The purpose of the study is to generate clinical evidence (level III) that specialized interdisciplinary management and the use of robotic orthosis reduce joint stiffness in post-surgical patients with hand fractures.
References
2. Michael N. Nakashian, Lauren Pointer, Brett D. Owens, and Jennifer Moriatis Wolf. Incidence of metacarpal fractures in the US population. American Association for Hand Surgery; Dec 2012. 7(4): 426-430.
3. de Putter CE, Selles RW, Polinder S, Panneman MJ, Hovius SE, van Beeck EF. Economic impact of hand and wrist inju- ries: health-care costs and productivity costs in a population-based study. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2012;94(9):e56. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.00561.
4. Hammert WC. Hand fractures and joint in- juries. Plastic Surgery Key. 2012;6:138-60.
5. Pun WK, Chow SP, So YC, Luk KD, Ip FK, Chan KC, et al. A prospective study on 284 digital fractures of the hand. J Hand Surg Am. 1989;14(3):474-81. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0363-5023(89)80006-1.
6. Meals C, Meals R. Hand Fractures: A Review of Current Treatment Strategies. J Hand Surg. 2013;38(5):1021-31. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.02.017.
7. Swanson AB. Fractures involving the digits of the hand. Orthop Clin North Am. 1970;1(2):261-74.
8. Green DP. Complications of phalangeal and metacarpal fractures. Hand Clin. 1986;2(2):307-28.
9. Page SM, Stern PJ. Complications and range of motion following plate fixation of metacarpal and phalangeal fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 1998;23(5):827-32. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016S0363-5023(98)80157-3.
10. Creighton JJ Jr, Steichen JB. Complications in phalangeal and metacarpal fracture management. Results of extensor tenolysis. Hand Clin. 1994;10(1):111-6.
11. Stern PJ, Wieser MJ, Reilly DG. Compli- cations of plate fixation in the hand skeleton. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214): 59-65.
12. Gaston RG, Kuremsky MA. Postoperative infections: prevention and management. Hand Clin. 2010;26(2):265-80. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hcl.2010.01.002.
13. Balaram AK, Bednar MS. Complications after the fractures of metacarpal and phalanges. Hand Clin. 2010;26(2):169-77. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.hcl.2010.01.005.
14. Markiewitz AD. Complications of hand frac- tures and their prevention. Hand Clin. 2013;29(4):601-20. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hcl.2013.08.012.
15. Hardy MA. Principles of metacarpal and phalangeal fracture management: a review of rehabilitation concepts. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2004;34(12):781-99. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2004.34.12.781.
16. Manuel Alejandro Morán-Castañedo y cols. Fracturas de la mano en la terapia física y rehabilitación: conceptos básicos, conceptos prácticos y visión general. El Residente. Enero – Abril 2014; Volumen 9, Número 1.
P.4-8. www.medigraphic.com.
17. Clark GL, Wilgis EFS, Aiello B, Eckhaus D, Eddington LV. Hand Rehabilitation: A Practical Guide. 2 ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.
18. Farmer SE, James M. Contractures in orthopaedic and neurological conditions: a review of causes and treatment. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23(13):549-58.
19. Thien TB, Becker JH, Theis JC. Rehabi- litation after surgery for flexor tendon inju- ries in the hand. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(4):CD003979. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003979. pub2.
20. Laura Lynn Onderko, Saquib Rehman. Treatment of Ar ticular Fractures with Continuous Passive Motions. Orthopedic Clinics. July 2013, Vol (44), Issue 3, Pages 345-356.
21. Hayes. Mechanical Stretching Devices for the Treatment of Joint Contractures of the Extremities: Lansdale Medical Technology Directory; 2011.
22. Fousmashi M, Troncossi M, Castelli P. State of the art of Hand Exoskeleton Systems. Bolonia: Universitá di Bologna; 2011.
23. Gómez-Rendón JF, Moreno-Arango JD, Gil- Henao GA, Becerra-Velásquez J, Orozco- Téllez CH. Rehabilitación de la mano con órtesis robóticas. Rev Col Med Fis Rehab. 2016;16(2):174-9.
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Article metrics | |
---|---|
Abstract views | |
Galley vies | |
PDF Views | |
HTML views | |
Other views |