-
ARP Rheumatology Jul 2022Trapeziometacarpal (TMC) joint osteoarthritis (OA) is a common disabling condition. Current treatments do not have a significant impact on symptom relief or disease...
PURPOSE
Trapeziometacarpal (TMC) joint osteoarthritis (OA) is a common disabling condition. Current treatments do not have a significant impact on symptom relief or disease progression and the benefit of visco-supplementation remains uncertain. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of hyaluronic acid (HA) intra-articular injection in rhizarthrosis.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature addressing the efficacy of HA on pain reduction, functional capacity or pinch strength in patients with rhizarthrosis was performed. Pain at rest, functional capacity and pinch strength were assessed at baseline, 4th, 12th and 24th weeks Results: Sixteen trials were included with a total of 587 patients treated with HA injections (9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 5 single-arm studies and 2 non-randomized comparative trials). Despite important heterogeneity among trials, HA injections lead to a reduction in pain at rest (decrease of 0.65-3.5 points and 0.8-4.03 points on Visual Analogue Score after 4th and 24th weeks respectively, compared to baseline). Regarding disability, as assessed by functional scales, all studies reported improvement on functionality. An increase in pinch strength of 0.1-1.4 kg and 0.4-2kg was also reported at 4th and 24th weeks respectively.
CONCLUSION
HA injections can be a valid therapeutic option inducing remission of pain with improvement of functionality and strength in patients suffering from TMC joint AO.
PubMed: 36056925
DOI: No ID Found -
Hand (New York, N.Y.) Oct 2023Ligament reconstruction tendon interposition (LRTI) and suture-button suspensionplasty (SBS) are both common treatment options for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. The...
Ligament reconstruction tendon interposition (LRTI) and suture-button suspensionplasty (SBS) are both common treatment options for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. The primary purpose of this systematic review was to compare the subjective improvement in patient-reported outcomes in regard to disability for patients undergoing LRTI and SBS for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. A secondary purpose was to compare the subjective improvement, objective outcome scores, and complication rates following both procedures. We performed a systematic review using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase to compare the clinical outcomes of LRTI and SBS. Inclusion criteria were level I-IV evidence articles reporting postoperative Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) or QuickDASH scores. Study methodological quality, risk of bias, and recommendation strength were assessed. This systematic review included 31 studies for final analysis with 1289 thumbs undergoing LRTI (25 studies) and 113 thumbs undergoing SBS (6 studies). Both procedures demonstrated similar improvement in DASH and/or QuickDASH scores, while key pinch and grip strength inconsistently improved following both procedures. Complication rate was similar between the 2 procedures; LRTI 12% and SBS 13%. Although both LRTI and SBS seem to provide improved short-term patient-reported functional improvement and objective strength, there was significant heterogeneity within the included studies, and those studies discussing SBS were of lower quality evidence than those of LRTI. Thus, to truly delineate whether a difference exists between these 2 techniques for the treatment of first carpometacarpal joint arthritis, larger prospectively designed studies of high-quality evidence are necessary.
Topics: Humans; Osteoarthritis; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Tendons; Ligaments; Sutures
PubMed: 35272518
DOI: 10.1177/15589447211043217 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Jul 2021Patients with ulnar nerve paralysis note difficulties performing activities of daily living because of weakness of pinch and altered grasp mechanism. This review...
BACKGROUND
Patients with ulnar nerve paralysis note difficulties performing activities of daily living because of weakness of pinch and altered grasp mechanism. This review investigates outcomes of tendon transfers for ulnar nerve paralysis to assist in shared decision-making with patients during preoperative counseling and to inform operative choices.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted to identify studies reporting outcomes following tendon transfer for ulnar nerve palsy. Studies were screened according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Primary outcome measures included postoperative pinch strength and mechanism of grasp.
RESULTS
A total of 26 studies (687 patients) met criteria for inclusion. After pooled analysis, the flexor digitorum superficialis lasso procedure yielded the highest rate of complete correction of claw deformity (60.6 percent), followed by flexor digitorum superficialis four-tail operation (31.4 percent). The extensor carpi radialis longus four-tail operation yielded the greatest improvement in grip strength (3.8 kg). The extensor carpi radialis brevis four-tail operation resulted in the best open hand assessment and mechanism of closing scores; however, these studies did not objectively evaluate grip strength. The greatest increase in pinch strength was following tendon transfer to adductor pollicis alone.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the heterogeneous data, if the primary goal is improvement in the appearance of claw deformity, the evidence supports flexor digitorum superficialis lasso transfer. However, if the primary concern is grip strength, the data favor extensor carpi radialis longus four-tail transfer. When pinch strength is functionally limiting, adductorplasty alone is most effective. These data will assist providers in appropriately informing patients of common risks and complications and setting realistic expectations following tendon transfer procedures.
Topics: Hand; Hand Strength; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Recovery of Function; Tendon Transfer; Ulnar Neuropathies
PubMed: 34014861
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008052 -
The Journal of Hand Surgery... Apr 2022Unconstrained pyrocarbon and metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty is an increasingly popular alternative to silicone implants...
Unconstrained pyrocarbon and metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthroplasty is an increasingly popular alternative to silicone implants and arthrodesis. This systematic review appraises their outcomes. Thirty studies comprising 1,324 joints (813 pyrocarbon, 511 MoP) were included. Mean patient age was 59 years (38-78) and mean follow-up period was 54 months (12-118). There were mean improvements of 4.5 points (2-6.9) in pain visual analogue score, 10.5° (-26 to 58) in range of motion (ROM), 3.1 kg (-4 to 7) in grip strength, 0.6 kg (-1.5 to 2) in pinch strength and 18 points (-3 to 29) in the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand score, with no significant differences between implant types. ROM gains deteriorated over time. Clinical complications were frequent (23%) and significantly more common with pyrocarbon, as were radiographic complications. However, most were mild-moderate and did not necessarily correlate with negative outcomes or dissatisfaction. Overall re-operation rate was 21%, and revision rate 11%, both more frequent with pyrocarbon. Most revisions were within 24 months, beyond which survival was maintained up to 10 years. Unconstrained PIP joint arthroplasty is effective in improving pain scores, active ROM, grip/pinch strength and patient-reported outcome measures, particularly in patients with osteoarthritis. Results are generally maintained at least to the medium term, although gains diminish in the longer term. Complication and early revision rates are high, particularly with pyrocarbon implants. Most patients express positive attitudes to arthroplasty, with significant improvements in patient-reported outcome measures for both pyrocarbon and MoP implants. Patients with post-traumatic and inflammatory arthropathy are generally less satisfied. There is currently insufficient data to recommend one implant type over another, although the early-to-medium term results of MoP implants are promising. Prospective surveillance via small joint registries is recommended. Level III (Therapeutic).
Topics: Adult; Aged; Arthroplasty; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Finger; Finger Joint; Humans; Joint Prosthesis; Middle Aged; Osteoarthritis; Pain; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35404211
DOI: 10.1142/S2424835522500266 -
JPRAS Open Mar 2024In thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) instability, laxity of the ligaments surrounding the joint leads to pain and weakness in grip and pinch strength, which predisposes the... (Review)
Review
In thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) instability, laxity of the ligaments surrounding the joint leads to pain and weakness in grip and pinch strength, which predisposes the patient to developing CMC joint arthritis. Recent advancements in joint anatomy and kinematics have led to the development of various surgical reconstructive procedures. This systematic review outlines the available ligament reconstruction techniques and their efficacy in treating nontraumatic and nonarthritic CMC instability. Additionally, we aimed to provide evidence which specific ligament reconstruction technique demonstrates the best results. Four databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central) were searched for studies that reported on surgical techniques and their clinical outcomes in patients with nontraumatic and nonarthritic CMC instability. Twelve studies were analyzed for qualitative review, including nine different surgical ligament reconstruction techniques involving two hundred and thirty thumbs. All but one of the reported techniques improved postoperative pain scores and showed substantial improvement in pinch and grip strength. Complication rates varied between 0% and 25%. The included studies showed that ligament reconstruction effectively alleviated the patients' complaints regarding pain and instability, resulting in overall high patient satisfaction. Nevertheless, drawing definitive conclusions regarding the superiority of any ligament reconstruction technique remains challenging owing to the limited availability of homogeneous data in the current literature.
PubMed: 38323100
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpra.2024.01.001 -
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery Nov 2018The goal of this study was to compare the two types of orthoses, prefabricated soft splints versus short thermoplastic custom-made splints, that are the most commonly... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The goal of this study was to compare the two types of orthoses, prefabricated soft splints versus short thermoplastic custom-made splints, that are the most commonly used for the management of first carpometacarpal (CMC) osteoarthritis (OA).
METHODS
We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review in the literature based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We extracted the outcomes of disability scores, pain scores, grip and pinch strength and gathered the unified data accordingly.
RESULTS
We included five randomized clinical trials with 230 patients with the mean age of 61 years and the mean follow-up of 8.1 weeks. The results of the pooled data demonstrated only a statistically significant difference in disability scores among splints in favor of the prefabricated splints. The rest of the outcome measures consisting of pain, grip strength, and pinch strength were not statistically different.
CONCLUSION
According to our systematic review and meta-analysis, both thumb-based splints improved pain and function in the first CMC OA in a short-term follow-up, nevertheless the efficacy of prefabricated splints in abatement of disability scores was significantly higher than custom-made splints. In contrast, the other outcome measures including pain, grip and pinch strength were improved identically after wearing either of the splints.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
II.
PubMed: 30637302
DOI: No ID Found -
Industrial Health 2015The purpose was to systematically review the published reports for the clinical utility of quantitative objective tests commonly used for diagnosing musculoskeletal... (Review)
Review
The purpose was to systematically review the published reports for the clinical utility of quantitative objective tests commonly used for diagnosing musculoskeletal disorders in hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS). Two reviewers independently conducted a computerized literature search in PubMed and Scopus using predefined criteria, and relevant papers were identified. The articles were screened in several stages and considered for final inclusion. Quality of the selected papers was evaluated by a modified QUADAS tool. Relevant data were extracted as necessary. For this review, only 4 relevant studies could be identified for detailed examination. Grip strength, pinch strength, and Purdue pegboard tests were commonly used with their reported sensitivity and specificity ranging between 1.7 to 65.7% and 65.2 to 100%, 1.7 to 40% and 94 to 100%, and 44.8 to 85% and 78 to 95%, respectively. A considerable difference across the studies was observed with respect to patient and control populations, diagnostic performance and cut-off values of different tests. Overall, currently available English-language limited literature do not provide enough evidence in favour of the application of grip strength and pinch strength tests for diagnosing musculoskeletal injuries in HAVS; Purdue pegboard test seems to have some diagnostic value in evaluating impaired dexterity in HAVS.
Topics: Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; Hand Strength; Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome; Humans; Motor Skills; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Pinch Strength; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 26051288
DOI: 10.2486/indhealth.2014-0221 -
Hand Therapy Jun 2022Both joint mobilisation and immobilisation are thought to be effective in the treatment of first carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) osteoarthritis (OA). The objective of this... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Both joint mobilisation and immobilisation are thought to be effective in the treatment of first carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) osteoarthritis (OA). The objective of this review was to establish whether either intervention reduced pain and improved pinch strength in people with first CMCJ OA in the short term and assess whether one intervention is superior to the other.
METHOD
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Seven databases were searched until May 2021. Only RCTs were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system were utilised to rate the evidence. Random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses were used.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included with a total of 417 participants. Mobilisation treatments included manual therapy with or without exercise while immobilisation interventions utilised thumb splinting with several different designs. Very low-quality and low-quality evidence showed that mobilisation led to statistically but not clinically significant improvements in pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.03 to 1; I = 60%; = 0.06) and pinch strength (SMD = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.7; I = 12%; = 0.3) compared to placebo. Very low-quality and low-quality evidence showed no effect on pain and pinch strength compared to a control or no intervention. Subgroup analyses revealed no difference between interventions.
DISCUSSION
Neither mobilisation nor immobilisation alone led to clinically important improvements in pain or pinch strength in the short term in people with symptomatic first CMCJ OA. Neither therapeutic strategy appeared to be superior.
PubMed: 37904729
DOI: 10.1177/17589983221083994 -
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice Oct 2023To examine the effectiveness of Neuromobilization Exercises (NE) on pain, grip and pinch strength, two-point discrimination, motor and sensory distal latency, symptom... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To examine the effectiveness of Neuromobilization Exercises (NE) on pain, grip and pinch strength, two-point discrimination, motor and sensory distal latency, symptom severity, and functional status using the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS).
METHODS
Major electronic databases were searched from inception up to September 2021 for randomized trials comparing the effects of NE with or without other interventions against no treatment, surgery, or other interventions in patients with CTS. Standardized Mean Differences (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effects inverse variance model according to the outcome of interest and comparison group. Methodological quality was assessed with PEDro and quality of evidence with the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Twenty-five articles were included and sixteen of them demonstrated high methodological quality. NE was superior to no treatment on pain (very low-quality evidence; SMD = -2.36, 95% CI -4.31 to -0.41). NE was superior to no treatment on the functional scale of the BCTQ (low-quality evidence; SMD = -1.27 95% CI -1.60 to -0.94). Most importantly, NE did not demonstrate evidence of clinical effectiveness.
CONCLUSION
Low to very low-quality evidence suggests that there are no clinical benefits of NE in patients with mild to moderate CTS.
Topics: Humans; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Exercise Therapy; Treatment Outcome; Hand Strength; Pain
PubMed: 35481794
DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2022.2068097 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Mar 2023We systematically reviewed published clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) technology on functional improvement, pain relief, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
We systematically reviewed published clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) technology on functional improvement, pain relief, and reduction of mental distress among burn patients undergoing rehabilitation.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic searches were conducted in 4 databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, from inception to August 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any type of VR for the rehabilitation in burn patients with dysfunction were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers evaluated the eligibility, and another 2 reviewers used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool to assess the risk of bias. The extracted data included the main results of rehabilitation evaluation (quality of life [QOL], work performance, range of motion [ROM] of joints, hand grip and pinch strength, pain, fun, anxiety), the application performance of VR (realness and presence), adverse effects (fatigue and nausea), and characteristics of the included studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the chi-square tests and I statistics. Random- or fixed-effects models were conducted to pool the effect sizes expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs).
DATA SYNTHESIS
Sixteen RCTs with 535 burn patients were included. VR-based interventions were superior to usual rehabilitation in QOL and work performance of burn patients and produced positive effect on the average gain of ROM (SMD=0.72) as well. VR was not associated with improved hand grip and pinch strength (SMD=0.50, 1.22, respectively) but was associated with reduced intensity, affective, and cognitive components of pain (SMD=-1.26, -0.71, -1.01, respectively) compared with control conditions. Ratings of fun in rehabilitation therapy were higher (SMD=2.38), and anxiety scores were lower (SMD=-0.73) than in control conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
VR-based burn rehabilitation significantly improves the QOL and work performance of burn patients, increases the ROM gain in the joints, reduces the intensity and unpleasantness of pain and the time spent thinking about pain, increases the fun in the rehabilitation therapy, reduces the anxiety caused by the treatment, and has no obvious adverse effects. However, it did not significantly improve hand grip or pinch strength.
Topics: Humans; Burns; Pain; Pain Management; Quality of Life; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 36030891
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2022.08.005