-
Hand (New York, N.Y.) Mar 2021To decrease the time to reinnervation of the intrinsic motor end plates after high ulnar nerve injuries, a supercharged end-to-side (SETS) anterior interosseous to...
To decrease the time to reinnervation of the intrinsic motor end plates after high ulnar nerve injuries, a supercharged end-to-side (SETS) anterior interosseous to ulnar motor nerve transfer has been proposed. The purpose of this study was to compile and review the indications, outcomes, and complications of SETS anterior interosseous to ulnar motor nerve transfer. A literature search was performed, identifying 73 papers; 4 of which met inclusion and exclusion criteria, including 78 patients. Papers included were those that contained the results of SETS between the years 2000 and 2018. Data were pooled and analyzed focusing on the primary outcomes: intrinsic muscle recovery and complications. Four studies with 78 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most patients (33.3%) underwent SETS for an ulnar nerve lesion in continuity, the average age was 46.5 years, and the average follow-up was 10 months. The average duration of symptoms before surgery was 99 weeks, all patients had weakness and numbness, nearly all (96%) had atrophy, and half (53%) had pain. Grip and key pinch strength improved 202% and 179%, respectively, from the preoperative assessment. The vast majority (91.9%) recovered intrinsic function at an average of 3.7 months. Other than 8% of patients who did not recover intrinsic strength, no other complications were reported in any of the 78 patients. The SETS is a successful procedure with low morbidity, which may restore intrinsic function in patients with proximal nerve injuries.
Topics: Arm; Hand Strength; Humans; Middle Aged; Nerve Transfer; Ulnar Nerve; Ulnar Neuropathies
PubMed: 30924361
DOI: 10.1177/1558944719836213 -
Journal of Hand and Microsurgery Apr 2023There has been an increasing utilization of end-to-end (ETE) and reverse "supercharged" end-to-side (SETS) anterior interosseous nerve (AIN) to ulnar nerve transfers... (Review)
Review
There has been an increasing utilization of end-to-end (ETE) and reverse "supercharged" end-to-side (SETS) anterior interosseous nerve (AIN) to ulnar nerve transfers (NTs) for treatment of high ulnar nerve injury. This study aimed to review the potential indications for, and outcomes of, ETE and SETS AIN-ulnar NT. A literature review was performed, and 10 articles with 156 patients who had sufficient follow-up to evaluate functional outcomes were included. English studies were included if they reported the outcome of patients with ulnar nerve injuries treated with AIN to ulnar motor NT. Outcomes were analyzed based on the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire scores, grip and key pinch strength, and interosseous Medical Research Council-graded motor strength. Comparisons were made using the independent -test and the chi-square test. No nerve graft control group was required for eligibility. Ulnar nerve injury types varied. NT resulted in 77% of patients achieving M3+ recovery, 53.7 ± 19.8 lb grip strength recovery, 61 ± 21% key pinch recovery, and a mean DASH score of 33.4 ± 16. In this diverse group, NT resulted in significantly greater M3+ recovery and grip strength recovery measured in pounds than in the nerve graft/conventional treatment group, and ETE repairs had significantly better outcomes compared with SETS repairs for grip strength, key pinch strength, and DASH scores, but heterogeneity limits interpretation. ETE and SETS AIN-ulnar NTs produce significant restoration of ulnar nerve motor function for high ulnar nerve injuries. For ulnar nerve transection injuries at or above the elbow, ETE NT results in superior motor recovery compared with nerve grafting/conventional repair. However, further research is needed to determine the best treatment for other types of ulnar nerve injury and the role of SETS NT.
PubMed: 37020610
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1734399 -
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation... Mar 2018People with type 2 diabetes mellitus frequently show complications in feet and hands. However, the literature has mostly focused on foot complications. The disease can... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with type 2 diabetes mellitus frequently show complications in feet and hands. However, the literature has mostly focused on foot complications. The disease can affect the strength and dexterity of the hands, thereby reducing function.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and meta-analysis focused on identifying the existing evidence on how type 2 diabetes mellitus affects hand strength, dexterity and function.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, CINHAL, Scopus and Web of Science, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials for reports of studies of grip and pinch strength as well as hand dexterity and function evaluated by questionnaires comparing patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and healthy controls that were published between 1990 and 2017. Data are reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Among 2077 records retrieved, only 7 full-text articles were available for meta-analysis. For both the dominant and non-dominant hand, type 2 diabetes mellitus negatively affected grip strength (SMD: -1.03; 95% CI: -2.24 to 0.18 and -1.37, -3.07 to 0.33) and pinch strength (-1.09, -2.56 to 0.38 and -1.12, -2.73 to 0.49), although not significantly. Dexterity of the dominant hand did not differ between diabetes and control groups but was poorer for the non-dominant hand, although not significantly. Hand function was worse for diabetes than control groups in 2 studies (MD: -8.7; 95% CI: -16.88 to -1.52 and 4.69, 2.03 to 7.35).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review with meta-analysis suggested reduced hand function, specifically grip and pinch strength, for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus versus healthy controls. However, the sample size for all studies was low. Hence, we need studies with adequate sample size and randomized controlled trials to provide statistically significant results.
Topics: Aged; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Neuropathies; Female; Hand Strength; Humans; Male; Middle Aged
PubMed: 29366905
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2017.12.006 -
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma... Jun 2022The optimal management of trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the subjective and objective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Differences between simple trapeziectomy and trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition for the treatment of trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The optimal management of trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the subjective and objective outcomes and complications of simple trapeziectomy (T) versus trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (T + LRTI).
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane electronic databases were searched from inception to Aug 31, 2020. Key words included "osteoarthrosis", "carpometacarpal joint", and "trapeziectomy". Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) including patients treated for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis were included. The subjective outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS] and disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire scores), objective outcomes (grip strength, tip, and key pinch strength) and complications were extracted. The methodological quality of each was assessed independently. Meta-analysis was performed for comparative trials. The protocol for this meta-analysis is available in PROSPERO (CRD42020195752).
RESULTS
From the 8 included studies (7 RCTs, 1 CCT), 656 cases were divided into T (n = 325) and T + LRTI (n = 331) groups. Compared with the T group, grip and tip pinch strength was better in the T + LRTI group (SMD = - 2.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) (- 3.46 to - 2.02), P < 0.00001) and (SMD = - 0.21, 95% CI (- 0.34 to - 0.08), P = 0.002), respectively, but there were significantly more complications 3 months after operation in the T + LRTI group (RR = 0.50, 95% CI (0.31 to 0.80), P = 0.004). The VAS score (SMD = 0.33, 95% CI (- 0.39 to 1.04), P = 0.37), DASH (SMD = - 1.86, 95% CI (- 7.59 to 3.87), P = 0.52), key pinch strength (SMD = - 0.13, 95% CI (- 0.28 to 0.01), P = 0.07), and incidence of complications 1 year after operation (RR = 0.83, 95% CI (0.53-1.29), P = 0.41) were not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
While the T + LRTI group demonstrated a better effect in grip and tip pinch strength at the one-year follow-up, there was no statistical difference in key pinch strength, pain relief, and DASH. Furthermore, T + LRTI has more latrogenic injury, more short-term postoperative complications, and higher surgical costs. Considered comprehensively, if there is no special strength requirement, we recommend simple trapeziectomy.
Topics: Carpometacarpal Joints; Humans; Ligaments; Osteoarthritis; Range of Motion, Articular; Tendons; Thumb; Trapezium Bone
PubMed: 33462739
DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03707-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017The role of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in the management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is controversial. While some trials have shown distinct advantages of LLLT... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The role of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in the management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is controversial. While some trials have shown distinct advantages of LLLT over placebo and some other non-surgical treatments, other trials have not.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of LLLT versus placebo and versus other non-surgical interventions in the management of CTS.
SEARCH METHODS
On 9 December 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies. We checked the references of primary studies and review articles, and contacted trial authors for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered for inclusion RCTs (irrespective of blinding, publication status or language) comparing LLLT versus placebo or non-surgical treatment for the management of CTS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials for inclusion and extracted the data. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model, calculated using Review Manager. For dichotomous data, we reported risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 22 trials randomising 1153 participants that were eligible for inclusion; nine trials (525 participants, 256 randomised to LLLT) compared LLLT with placebo, two (150 participants, 75 randomised to LLLT) compared LLLT with ultrasound, one compared LLLT with placebo and LLLT with ultrasound, two compared LLLT with steroid injection, and one trial each compared LLLT with other non-surgical interventions: fascial manipulation, application of a pulsed magnetic field, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), steroid injection, tendon gliding exercises, and applying a wrist splint combined with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Three studies compared LLLT as part of multiple interventions. Risk of bias varied across the studies, but was high or unclear in most assessed domains in most studies. Most studies were small, with few events, and effect estimates were generally imprecise and inconsistent; the combination of these factors led us to categorise the quality of evidence for most outcomes as very low or, for a small number, low. At short-term follow-up (less than three months), there was very low-quality evidence for any effect over placebo of LLLT on CTS for the primary outcome of Symptom Severity Score (scale 1 to 5, higher score represents worsening; MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.06) or Functional Status Scale (scale 1 to 5, higher score represents worsened disability; MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.09). At short-term (less than three months) follow-up, we are uncertain whether LLLT results in a greater improvement than placebo in visual analogue score (VAS) pain (scale 0 to 10, higher score represents worsening; MD -1.47, 95% CI -2.36 to -0.58) and several aspects of nerve conduction studies (motor nerve latency: higher score represents worsening; MD -0.09 ms, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.03; range 3.1 ms to 4.99 ms; sensory nerve latency: MD -0.10 ms, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.06; range 1.8 ms to 3.9 ms), as the quality of the evidence was very low. When compared with placebo at short-term follow-up, LLLT may slightly improve grip strength (MD 2.58 kg, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.95; range 14.2 kg to 25.23 kg) and finger-pinch strength (MD 0.94 kg, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.44; range 4.35 kg to 5.7 kg); however, the quality of evidence was low. Only VAS pain and finger-pinch strength results reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) as previously published. We are uncertain about the effect of LLLT in comparison to ultrasound at short-term follow-up for improvement in VAS pain (MD 2.81, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.40) and motor nerve latency (MD 0.61 ms, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95), as the quality of evidence was very low. When compared with ultrasound at short-term follow-up, LLLT may result in slightly less improvement in finger-pinch strength (MD -0.71 kg, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.49) and motor nerve amplitude (MD -1.90 mV, 95% CI -3.63 to -0.18; range 7.10 mV to 9.70 mV); however, the quality of evidence was low. There was insufficient evidence to assess the long-term benefits of LLLT versus placebo or ultrasound. There was insufficient evidence to show whether LLLT is better or worse in the management of CTS than other non-surgical interventions. For all outcomes reported within these other comparisons, the quality of evidence was very low. There was insufficient evidence to assess adverse events, as only one study reported this outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is of very low quality and we found no data to support any clinical effect of LLLT in treating CTS. Only VAS pain and finger-pinch strength met previously published MCIDs but these are likely to be overestimates of effect given the small studies and significant risk of bias. There is low or very low-quality evidence to suggest that LLLT is less effective than ultrasound in the management of CTS based on short-term, clinically significant improvements in pain and finger-pinch strength. There is insufficient evidence to support LLLT being better or worse than any other type of non-surgical treatment in the management of CTS. Any further research of LLLT should be definitive, blinded, and of high quality.
PubMed: 35611937
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012765 -
Journal of Wrist Surgery Jun 2020A common notion is that more complex techniques for treating trapeziometacarpal arthritis such as ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) better...
A common notion is that more complex techniques for treating trapeziometacarpal arthritis such as ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) better preserve the scaphometacarpal (SMC) space compared to a simple trapeziectomy and that this leads to superior functional outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the relationship between scaphometacarpal space and objective outcomes such as grip and pinch strength as well as subjective patient-reported outcomes. A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting SMC space and outcomes after surgery for carpometacarpal arthritis. The primary outcomes of these studies included any measure of postoperative scaphometacarpal space (trapezial height/trapezial index) as well as key pinch strength, grip strength, or lateral pinch strength. Studies that did not assess for association between SMC space and outcomes were excluded. Fourteen studies were included in this systematic review. Three (21.4%) studies found a statistically significant correlation between postoperative SMC space and postoperative pinch or grip strength. The correlation was weakly positive in one study (key pinch vs. scaphometacarpal space, = 0.13), positive but unlisted in another (lateral pinch vs. trapezial ratio), and negative in the third study (key pinch vs. trapezial space ratio, = -0.47). Preservation of the SMC space postoperatively is not associated with postoperative outcomes. Further research is necessary to better characterize the importance of maintaining the SMC space in patients undergoing LRTI in order to substantiate claims by proponents of the procedure.
PubMed: 32509434
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1692477 -
Journal of Orthopaedics 2021Although rare, thumb Carpometacarpal (CMC) joint dislocations can have significant complications which impact hand function. Optimal management is crucial in restoring... (Review)
Review
Although rare, thumb Carpometacarpal (CMC) joint dislocations can have significant complications which impact hand function. Optimal management is crucial in restoring pinch and grasp strength, but no agreement exists regarding treatment due to a paucity of literature on this subject. Systematic review was conducted involving non-operative and operative management of the CMC joint. 15 articles with a total of 60 thumbs were evaluated from published literature. 12/60 thumbs with isolated CMC joint dislocations were treated with closed reduction, with 4 cases needing additional ligament repair due to joint instability post-reduction. 51/60 of the isolated CMC joint dislocations had ligament reconstruction, with flexor carpi radialis tendon autograft (29/51) as the most popular option. 60/60 patients regained full function and stability of the CMC joint with significant pain relief. Although good surgical outcomes have been achieved, long term clinical outcome reporting is needed to develop a standardized approach to treatment.
PubMed: 33927510
DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.03.015 -
Hand Therapy Dec 2023Upper extremity injuries are common, and often treated by occupational therapists. The need to evaluate the effectiveness of occupational therapy interventions to guide... (Review)
Review
Effectiveness of occupational therapy-led computer-aided interventions on function among adults with conditions of the hand, wrist, and forearm: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Upper extremity injuries are common, and often treated by occupational therapists. The need to evaluate the effectiveness of occupational therapy interventions to guide practice is pertinent. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigate the effectiveness of occupational therapy-led computer-aided interventions among adults with conditions of the hand, wrist, and forearm.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of five databases was undertaken for randomized studies examining occupational therapy-led computer-aided interventions for the treatment of hand, wrist, and forearm conditions. The primary outcome was function, with secondary outcomes of pain, grip and pinch strength. The quality of the included studies was independently assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias V2 tool. Meta-analyses were completed.
RESULTS
Three randomized controlled trials were included with 176 participants. One study reported on app use on a tablet and two studies reported on computer gaming. Participants had a variety of hand and wrist diagnoses, treated both conservatively and operatively. There is limited evidence demonstrating that computer-based interventions are as effective as other occupational therapy-led interventions in improving function, pain, grip and pinch strength post-intervention, including small effect size following meta-analysis: grip strength (Fixed Effects Model, SMD 0.13, 95% CI 2.63; -2.36, I = 0%) and pinch strength (Fixed Effects Model, SMD -0.12, 95% CI 1.25; -1.50, I = 11%).
CONCLUSIONS
Limited evidence was found to support the use of computer-aided interventions for adults with a hand, wrist or forearm injury. Further high-quality research is recommended inclusive of a broader range of technologies and a broader range of clinical and patient-reported outcome measures.
PubMed: 38031572
DOI: 10.1177/17589983231209678 -
Clinical Rheumatology Nov 2014Hand exercises are often part of the treatment of hand rheumatoid arthritis; however, it is still unclear whether and what type of exercises is effective in the... (Review)
Review
Hand exercises are often part of the treatment of hand rheumatoid arthritis; however, it is still unclear whether and what type of exercises is effective in the treatment of this condition. Therefore, a systematic review into the effectiveness of hand exercises in the treatment of hand rheumatoid arthritis has been performed. Studies were identified in the literature databases by predefined search criteria. The eight included studies are peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2014. Hand exercises differed between studies, but always included resistance and/or active range of motion exercises. Grip strength in various grip types (power grip, key pinch, precision pinch and tripod pinch) was found to improve by hand exercise therapy without having adverse effects on pain or disease activity. Adaptations in the range of motion in response to hand exercise therapy were less pronounced. There appears to be some transfer from the improvements on the body functioning level to the level of daily functioning, with the largest improvements found on grip ability. With regard to the intervention content, there was some evidence in favour of a longer therapy duration and a higher therapy intensity. No conclusions could be drawn on the effectiveness of the different types of exercises. Collectively, the studies indicate that hand exercises may have positive effects on strength and some aspects of daily functioning without aggravating disease activity or pain, although caution should be taken for subjects in the exacerbation period.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Exercise Therapy; Hand; Hand Strength; Humans; Range of Motion, Articular; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24952308
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-014-2691-2 -
The Journal of Hand Surgery... Jun 2023Primary repair for traumatic injuries to the ulnar nerve alone does not always restore satisfactory hand function, particularly in injuries above the elbow where the...
Primary repair for traumatic injuries to the ulnar nerve alone does not always restore satisfactory hand function, particularly in injuries above the elbow where the long distances for regeneration limit motor reinnervation. Reductions in key pinch and grip strength are some of the main complaints. Tendon transfers have traditionally been used to improve key pinch and grip strength as a late salvage where primary nerve regeneration has run its course. Nerve transfers have been proposed as an alternative procedure and may be offered early to augment recovery, lengthen the window for reinnervation or provide motor reinnervation where the results of nerve repair are expected to be poor. This review sought to identify whether one type of procedure was superior to the other for reconstructing key pinch and grip strength. Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify articles that concerned nerve or tendon transfer following isolated traumatic injury to the ulnar nerve. Articles were excluded if patients had polytrauma or degenerative diseases of the peripheral nerves. A total of 179 articles were screened for inclusion. And 35 full-text articles were read and assessed for eligibility, of which seven articles were eligible. Following citation search, two additional articles were included. Five tendon transfer articles and four nerve transfer articles were included. Key pinch and grip strength outcomes for both procedures were roughly similar, though tendon transfers carried a much higher risk of complications. Based on the key pinch and grip strength outcomes, tendon transfer and nerve transfer restore a similar degree of function following traumatic ulnar injury. Reported nerve transfer outcomes for grip strength were slightly better. Return to useful function was faster following tendon transfers. Preoperative data and more patient-reported outcome measures should be recorded in future studies to provide more context for each procedure type. Level III (Therapeutic).
Topics: Humans; Hand Strength; Nerve Transfer; Neurosurgical Procedures; Tendon Transfer; Ulnar Nerve
PubMed: 37173143
DOI: 10.1142/S2424835523500340