Two case reports—Use of relative motion orthoses to manage extensor tendon zones III and IV and sagittal band injuries in adjacent fingers

Hirth, Melissa J.; Howell, Julianne W.; O’Brien, Lisa

doi:10.1016/j.jht.2017.04.006

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another barrier for more than half of the Malaysian and one quarter of the IFSHT respondents was the common concern that the RME splint offered too little protection for most of their patients, 1 although the literature does not support this opinion. 12–14,18–22…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative management of zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs: A survey of practice in Malaysia and comparison to IFSHT member countries

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction A survey of International Federation of Societies for Hand Therapy (IFSHT) member countries identified relative motion extension as the preferred approach to management of zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs. The aims of this survey were to identify and compare hand therapy practice patterns in Malaysia (a non-IFSHT member country) with findings of the IFSHT survey including an IFSHT subset of Asia-Pacific therapists and to investigate if membership status of the Malaysian Society for Hand Therapists (MSHT) influenced therapy practice patterns. Methods An online English-language survey was distributed to 90 occupational therapists and physiotherapists including MSHT members and non-members. Participation required management of at least one extensor tendon repair in the preceding year. Five approaches were surveyed: immobilisation, early passive motion (EPM) with dynamic splinting, and early active motion (EAM) delivered by resting hand (RH), palmar resting interphalangeal joints free (PR), and relative motion extension (RME) splints. Results Thirty-seven of the 53 therapists (68%) who commenced the survey completed it. The most used approach was dynamic/EPM (28%), followed by RH/immobilisation (22%) and RH/EAM (22%). A preference for RME/EAM was identified with implementation barriers being surgeon preference and hand therapist confidence. Discussion Approach selection for Malaysian therapists differed from the combined IFSHT and Asia-Pacific respondents, with the former using dynamic/EPM and RH/immobilisation compared to IFSHT respondents who predominately used RME/EAM and PR/EAM. This survey provides valuable insights into Malaysian hand therapists’ practices. If implementation barriers and therapist confidence are addressed, Malaysian practice patterns may change to better align with current evidence.

show abstract