The Importance of Motion

Guse, Thomas R.; Steiner, Mark E.

doi:10.1097/00132585-199600410-00004

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…21 When managing acute soft-tissue knee injuries, many physicians are influenced by treatment principles that allow motion so long as further injury is avoided, which is evidenced by decreasing levels of pain and inflammation. [1][2][3][4][5][6][22][23][24][25][26][27] Unfortunately, clear guidelines regarding the use of immobilization for specific knee injuries do not currently exist. The purpose of this study was to explore the opinions and reported practice patterns of EPs, SMPs and OS with regards to the use of early immobilization in the management of acute soft-tissue injuries of the knee.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The development of knee stiffness is a potentially devastating consequence for a patient who is treated unnecessarily with prolonged knee immobilization. 2,4,[8][9][10]23 Motion loss can delay rehabilitation, impair function and delay surgery if it is required. 9,10 Unfortunately, there are no evidencebased, accepted and specific guidelines regarding the use of knee immobilization after acute soft-tissue knee injury.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of early immobilization in the management of acute soft-tissue injuries of the knee: results of a survey of emergency physicians, sports medicine physicians and orthopedic surgeons

Sommerfeldt

Bouliane

Otto

et al. 2015

cjs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Evidence-based guidelines on the use of immobilization in the management of common acute soft-tissue knee injuries do not exist. Our objective was to explore the practice patterns of emergency physicians (EPs), sports medicine physicians (SMPs) and orthopedic surgeons (OS) regarding the use of early immobilization in the management of these injuries. Methods:We developed a web-based survey and sent it to all EPs, SMPs and OS in a Canadian urban centre. The survey was designed to assess the likelihood of prescribing immobilization and to evaluate factors associated with physicians from these 3 disciplines making this decision. Results:The overall response rate was 44 of 112 (39%): 17 of 58 (29%) EPs, 7 of 15 (47%) SMPs and 20 of 39 (51%) OS. In cases of suspected meniscus injuries, 9 (50%) EPs indicated they would prescribe immobilization, whereas no SMPs and 1 (5%) OS would immobilize (p = 0.002). For suspected anterior cruciate ligament injuries, 13 (77%) EPs, 2 (29%) SMPs and 5 (25%) OS said they would immobilize (p = 0.005). For lateral collateral ligament injuries, 9 (53%) EPs, no SMPs and 6 (32%) OS would immobilize (p = 0.04). All respondents would prescribe immobilization for a grossly unstable knee. Conclusion:We found that EPs were are more likely to prescribe immobilization for certain acute soft-tissue knee injuries than SMPs and OS. The development of an evidenced-based guideline for the use of knee immobilization after acute soft-tissue injury may reduce practice variability.Contexte : Il n'existe pas de lignes directrices factuelles sur le recours à l'immo bilisation pour la prise en charge des traumatismes aigus communs qui affectent les tissus mous du genou. Notre objectif était d'explorer les habitudes de pratique des urgentologues, des médecins du sport et des chirurgiens orthopédistes quant au recours à l'immobilisation pour la prise en charge initiale de ces blessures.Méthodes : Nous avons conçu un sondage Web et l'avons fait parvenir à tous les urgentologues, médecins du sport et chirurgiens orthopédistes d'un centre urbain canadien. Le sondage visait à évaluer la probabilité que l'immobilisation soit prescrite et à dégager les facteurs associés à ce type de décision chez les praticiens de ces 3 disciplines.

show abstract