Relative motion flexion following zone I-III flexor tendon repair: Concepts,evidence and practice.

Study DesignNarrative review and case series.IntroductionThe relative motion approach has been applied to rehabilitation following flexor tendon repair. Positioning the affected finger(s) in relatively more metacarpophalangeal joint flexion is hypothesized to reduce the tension through the repaired flexor digitorum profundus by the quadriga effect. It is also hypothesized that altered patterns of co-contraction and co-inhibition may further reduce flexor digitorum profundus tension, and confer protection to flexor digitorum superficialis.MethodsWe reviewed the existing literature to explore the rationale for using relative motion flexion orthoses as an early active mobilization strategy for patients after zone I-III flexor tendon repairs. We used this approach within our own clinic for the rehabilitation of a series of patients presenting with zone I-II flexor tendon repair. We collected routine clinical and patient reported outcome data.ResultsWe report published outcomes of the clinical use of relative motion flexion orthoses with early active motion, implemented as the primary rehabilitation approach after zone I-III flexor digitorum repairs. We also report novel outcome data from 18 patients.DiscussionWe discuss our own experience of using relative motion flexion as a rehabilitation strategy following flexor tendon repair. We explore orthosis fabrication, rehabilitation exercises and functional hand use.ConclusionsThere is currently limited evidence informing use of relative motion flexion orthoses following flexor tendon repair. We highlight key areas for future research and describe a current pragmatic randomized controlled trial.     

Are the outcomes of relative motion extension orthoses non-inferior and cost-effective compared with dynamic extension orthoses for management of zones V-VI finger extensor tendon repairs: A randomized controlled trial

IntroductionThere is no comparative evidence for relative motion extension (RME) orthosis with dynamic wrist-hand-finger-orthosis (WHFO) management of zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs.Purpose of the studyTo determine if RME with wrist-hand-orthosis (RME plus) is noninferior to dynamic WHFO for these zones in clinical outcomes.Study designRandomized controlled non-inferiority trial.MethodsSkilled hand therapists managed 37 participants (95% male; mean age 39 years, SD 18) with repaired zones V-VI extensor tendons randomized to RME plus (n = 19) or dynamic WHFO (n = 18). The primary outcome of percentage of total active motion (%TAM) and secondary outcomes of satisfaction, function, and quality of life were measured at week-6 and -12 postoperatively; percentage grip strength (%Grip), complication rates, and cost data at week-12. Following the intention-to-treat principle non-inferiority was assessed using linear regression analysis (5% significance) and adjusted for injury complexity factors with an analysis of costs performed.ResultsRME plus was noninferior for %TAM at week-6 (adjusted estimates 2.5; 95% CI -9.0 to 14.0), %TAM at week-12 (0.3; -6.8 to 7.5), therapy satisfaction at week-6 and -12, and orthosis satisfaction, QuickDASH, and %Grip at week-12. Per protocol analysis yielded 2 tendon ruptures in the RME plus orthoses and 1 in the dynamic WHFO. There were no differences in health system and societal cost, or quality-adjusted life years.DiscussionRME plus orthosis wearers had greater injury complexity than those in dynamic WHFOs, with overall rupture rate for both groups comparatively more than reported by others; however, percentage %TAM was comparable. The number of participants needed was underestimated, so risk of chance findings should be considered.ConclusionsRME plus management of finger zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs is non-inferior to dynamic WHFO in %TAM, therapy and orthotic satisfaction, QuickDASH, and %Grip. Major costs associated with this injury are related to lost work time.     

A randomized clinical trial comparing early active motion programs: Earlier hand function,TAM, and orthotic satisfaction with a relative motion extension program for zones V and VI extensor tendon repairs

Study DesignRandomized clinical trial with parallel groups.IntroductionEarly active mobilization programs are used after zones V and VI extensor tendon repairs; two programs used are relative motion extension (RME) orthosis and controlled active motion (CAM). Although no comparative studies exist, use of the RME orthosis has been reported to support earlier hand function.Purpose of the StudyThis randomized clinical trial investigated whether patients managed with an RME program would recover hand function earlier postoperatively than those managed with a CAM program.MethodsForty-two participants with zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs were randomized into either a CAM or RME program. The Sollerman Hand Function Test (SHFT) was the primary outcome measure of hand function. Days to return to work, QuickDASH (Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand) questionnaire, total active motion (TAM), grip strength, and patient satisfaction were the secondary measures of outcome.ResultsThe RME group demonstrated better results at four weeks for the SHFT score (P = .0073; 95% CI: −10.9, −1.8), QuickDASH score (P = .05; 95% CI: −0.05, 19.5), and TAM (P = .008; 95% CI: −65.4, −10.6). Days to return to work were similar between groups (P = .77; 95% CI: −28.1, 36.1). RME participants were more satisfied with the orthosis (P < .0001; 95% CI: 3.5, 8.4). No tendon ruptures occurred.DiscussionParticipants managed using an RME program, and RME finger orthosis demonstrated significantly better early hand function, TAM, and orthosis satisfaction than those managed by the CAM program using a static wrist-hand-finger orthosis. This is likely due to the less restrictive design of the RME orthosis.ConclusionsThe RME program supports safe earlier recovery of hand function and motion when compared to a CAM program following repair of zones V and VI extensor tendons.     

Implementing an internal audit to change practice: Current evidence and review of patient outcomes enabled transition to the relative motion extension approach in the postoperative management of zones IV-VI extensor tendon repairs

BackgroundEvidence supports use of the relative motion extension (RME) approach following extensor tendon repairs in zones V-VI yielding good or excellent outcomes.PurposeTo demonstrate how a 3-year internal audit and regular review of emerging evidence guided our change in practice from our longstanding use of the Norwich Regimen to the RME approach using implementation research methods. We compared the outcomes of both approaches prior to the formal adoption of the RME approach.Study DesignProspective clinical audit.MethodsA prospective audit of all consecutive adult finger extensor tendon repairs in zones IV-VII rehabilitated in our tertiary public health hand centre was undertaken between November 2014 and December 2017. Each audit year, outcomes were reviewed regarding the Norwich regimen and the RME early active motion approaches. As new evidence emerged, adjustments were made to our audit protocol for the RME approach. Discharge measurements of the range of motion of the affected and contralateral fingers and complications were recorded.ResultsDuring the 3-year audit, data was available on 79 patients (56 RME group including 59 fingers with 71 tendon repairs; 23 Norwich group including 28 fingers with 34 tendon repairs) with simple (n = 68) and complex (n = 11) finger extensor tendon zones IV-VI repairs (no zone VII presented during this time). Over time, the practice pattern shifted from the Norwich Regimen approach to the RME approach (and with the use of the RME plus [n = 33] and RME only [n = 23] approaches utilized). All approaches yielded similar good to excellent outcomes per total active motion and Miller’s classification, with no tendon ruptures or need for secondary surgery.ConclusionsAn internal audit of practice provided the necessary information regarding implementation to support a shift in hand therapy practice and to gain therapist or surgeon confidence in adopting the RME approach as another option for the rehabilitation of zone IV-VI finger extensor tendon repairs.     

Treatment of a zone III extensor tendon injury using a single relative motion with dorsal hood orthosis and a modified short arc motion protocol—A case report

Study DesignCase report.IntroductionZone III extensor tendon injuries are typically treated with early mobilization or by a period of immobilization followed by gradual motion. In both scenarios, the use of multiple orthoses is required.Purpose of the studyThis case report examines the effective use of a single, modified relative motion orthosis throughout the protected rehabilitation phase after a zone III extensor tendon repair.MethodsA patient with extensor tendon zone III laceration to his index finger (10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems s66.328) was treated using a single, relative motion with dorsal hood orthosis. The exercise protocol followed a modified immediate short arc motion program.ResultsFollowing laceration and complete rupture of the central slip, the patient regained full range of motion, strength, and function.DiscussionIt is becoming more common to use a relative motion flexion (RMF) orthosis to correct or improve extensor lag due to boutonniere deformity or stiffness after finger fractures. There is very little literature to support the use of the RMF orthosis after zone III extensor tendon repair. To produce a single orthosis that is useful through the entire protected phase of rehabilitation, the RMF orthosis is easily modified by addding a dorsal hood to create the relative motion dorsal hood orthosis (RMDH).ConclusionOur case report shows the successful treatment of a zone III extensor tendon repair using a single relative motion with dorsal hood orthosis and early active motion throughout the entire protected phase of rehabilitation.     

Use of a relative motion flexion orthosis after epitendinous zone II flexor tendon repair: A case report

Study designCase reportIntroductionRelative motion flexion (RMF) orthoses are emerging as an option for early active motion (EAM) postoperatively.Purpose of the studyTo describe the rationale and implementation of an RMF orthosis to manage a patient after partial zone II epitendinous flexor tendon repairs.MethodsThis case involves a female who sustained partial flexor tendon lacerations to her middle finger in zone II, 60% flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) and 90% flexor digitorum profundus (FDP). After epitendinous repair she was referred to therapy for EAM with a no orthosis request. The unusual circumstances prompted the therapist, concerned about the risk of tendon rupture to engage in discussion with the surgeon. Following discussion, a decision was made to use an RMF orthosis for controlled EAM to protect the epitendinous zone II FDS and FDP repairs. Outcomes of range of motion (ROM), total active motion (TAM), %TAM, grip, and quickDASH are reported.ResultsNeither the FDP or FDS tendons ruptured, nor were there any joint contractures. “Good” %TAM outcomes were achieved at 12-week postoperatively. Quick DASH scores improved 61 points indicating a clinically meaningful difference of improved function.DiscussionThe lack of a multi-strand core suture repair is unusual in combination with EAM. The positive outcomes reported in this single patient have raised questions about the protective benefit of the RMF orthosis when used with a zone II epitendinous repair of a 90% FDP laceration. Epitendinous repair of a partial (60%) FDS injury, however, is not uncommon and often not repaired at all.ConclusionsIn this single case report the epitendinous repairs of zone II 90% FDP and 60% FDS with digital nerve involvement were successfully managed with an RMF only orthosis. The use of EAM with an epitendinous repair is in conflict to the current surgical and therapy literature.     

Comparison of two relative motion extension approaches (RME with versus without an additional overnight orthosis) following zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs: A randomized equivalence trial

Study designMulti--center randomized controlled trial with two intervention parallel groups. An equivalence trial.IntroductionRelative motion extension (RME) orthoses are widely used in the postoperative management of finger extensor tendon repairs in zones V-VI. Variability in orthotic additions to the RME only (without a wrist orthosis) approach has not been verified in clinical studies.Purpose of the studyTo examine if two RME only approaches (with or without an additional overnight wrist-hand-finger orthosis) yields clinically similar outcomes.MethodsThirty-two adult (>18 years) participants (25 males, 7 females) were randomized to one of two intervention groups receiving either 1) a relative motion extension orthosis for day wear and an overnight wrist-hand-finger orthosis ('RME Day' group), or 2) a relative motion extension orthosis to be worn continuously ('RME 24-Hr' group); both groups for a period of four postoperative weeks.ResultsUsing a series of linear mixed models we found no differences between the intervention groups for the primary (ROM including TAM, TAM as a percentage of the contralateral side [%TAM], and Millers Criteria) and secondary outcome measures of grip strength, QuickDASH and PRWHE scores. The models did identify several covariates that are correlated with outcome measures. The covariate ‘Age’ influenced TAM (P = .006) and %TAM (P = .007), with increasing age correlating with less TAM and recovery of TAM compared to the contralateral digit. 'Sex' and 'Contralateral TAM' are also significant covariates for some outcomes.DiscussionWith similar outcomes between both intervention groups, the decision to include an additional night orthosis should be individually tailored for patients rather than protocol-based. As the covariates of ‘Age’ and ‘Sex’ influenced outcomes, these should be considered in clinical practice.ConclusionsA relative motion extension only approach with or without an additional overnight wrist-hand-finger orthosis yielded clinically similar results whilst allowing early functional hand use, without tendon rupture.     

Relative motion extension management of zones V and VI extensor tendon repairs: Does international practice align with the current evidence?

Study DesignElectronic Web-based survey.IntroductionTherapists participating in an international survey selected relative motion extension (RME) as the “most used” approach for the postoperative management of zones V and VI extensor tendon repairs. A subgroup of respondents identified RME as their preferred approach and were asked about their routine RME practices.Purpose of the StudyThe purpose of this study was to capture data from routine RME users about their practices and compare this with the RME evidence.MethodsAn English-language survey was distributed to 36 International Federation of Societies for Hand Therapy full-member countries. Participation required therapists to have postsurgically managed at least one extensor tendon repair within the previous year. Those who selected RME as their “most used” approach were asked to identify which variation of the RME approach they favored: RME plus (with wrist orthosis), RME only, or “both” RME plus and RME only, and then were directed to additional questions related to their choice.ResultsRespondents from 28 International Federation of Societies for Hand Therapy full-member countries completed the survey. RME users (N = 368; 41.5% of sample) contributed to this secondary data. Respondents favored the RME variation “RME plus” (47%), followed by “both” (44%), then “RME only” (9%) with most managing single digit/simple injuries (n = 287, 81%) versus multiple digit/complex injuries (n = 96, 27%), and partial repairs (n = 278, 79%).DiscussionPractices not aligning with limited level II-IV evidence includes half of RME only users not adding/substituting an overnight orthosis; use of RME plus versus RME only for both repairs of independent extensor tendons and repairs proximal to the juncturae tendinum; fabrication of three not four-finger orthotic design; and restricting use to only repairs of one or two fingers.ConclusionsRME plus and RME only are used interchangeably depending on surgeon preferences and patient/tendon factors. Compared with RME plus, from this survey, it appears that the RME only approach yields similar uncomplicated, early return of motion and hand function.     

Postoperative hand therapy management of zones V and VI extensor tendon repairs of the fingers: An international inquiry of current practice

Study DesignElectronic Web-based survey.IntroductionEvidence supports early motion over immobilization for postoperative extensor tendon repair management. Various early motion programs and orthoses are used, with no single approach recognized as superior. It remains unknown if and how early motion is used by hand therapists worldwide.Purpose of the StudyThe purpose of this study was to determine if there is a preferred approach and identify practice patterns for constituents of International Federation of Societies for Hand Therapy full-member countries.MethodsParticipation in this English-language survey required respondents to have postoperatively managed at least one extensor tendon repair within the previous year. Approaches surveyed included programs of immobilization, early passive (EPM), and early active (EAM) with motion delivered by resting hand, dynamic, palmar/interphalangeal joints (IPJs) free, or relative motion extension (RME) orthoses. Survey flow depended on the respondent's answer to their “most used” approach in the previous year.ResultsThere were 992 individual responses from 28 International Federation of Societies for Hand Therapy member countries including 887 eligible responses with an 81% completion rate. The order of most used program was EAM (83%), EPM (8%), and immobilization (7%). The two most used orthoses for delivery of EAM were RME (43%) and palmar/IPJs free (25%). The RME orthosis was preferred for earlier recovery of hand function and motion. Barriers to therapists wanting to use the RME/EAM approach related to preference of surgeon (70%) and clinic (24%).DiscussionIn practice, many therapists select from multiple approaches to manage zone V and VI extensor tendon repairs. Therapists believed TAM achieved with the RME/EAM approach was superior to the other approaches. Contrary to the literature, in practice, many therapists modify forearm-based palmar/IPJs free orthosis to exclude the wrist to manage this diagnosis.ConclusionsThe RME/EAM approach was identified as the favored approach. Practice patterns and evidence did not always align.     

Use of a relative motion flexion orthosis for postoperative management of zone I/II flexor digitorum profundus repair: A retrospective consecutive case series

Study DesignA retrospective, single-center, consecutive case series.IntroductionIn concept, a relative motion flexion (RMF) orthosis will induce a “quadriga effect” on a given flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) tendon, limiting its excursion and force of flexion while still permitting a wide range of finger motion. This effect can be exploited in the rehabilitation of zone I and II FDP repairs.Purpose of the StudyTo describe the use of RMF orthoses to manage zone I and II FDP 4-strand repairs.MethodsMedical record review of 10 consecutive zone I and II FDP tendon repairs managed with RMF orthosis for 8 to 10 weeks in combination with a static dorsal blocking or wrist orthosis for the initial 3 weeks.ResultsIndications included sharp lacerations (n = 6), ragged lacerations (n = 2), staged flexor tendon reconstruction (n = 1), and type IV avulsion (n = 1). In 8 of the 10 cases that completed follow-up, the mean arc of proximal interphalangeal/distal interphalangeal active motion were as follows: sharp, 0° to 106°/0° to 75°; ragged, 0° to 90°/0° to 25°; reconstruction, 0° to 90°/10° to 45°; and avulsion, 0° to 95°/0° to 20°. Grip performance available for 6 of 10 cases was 62% to 108% of the dominant hand. There were no tendon ruptures, secondary surgeries, or proximal interphalangeal joint contractures.ConclusionBased on this small series, the RMF approach appears to be safe and effective. It can lead to similar mobility and functional recovery as other early active motion protocols, with certain practical advantages and without major complications. Further investigation with larger, multicenter, prospective, longitudinal cohorts and/or randomized clinical trials is necessary.     

Systematic review: Zone IV extensor tendon early active mobilization programs

Study DesignSystematic reviewIntroductionEarly active mobilization (EAM) of tendon repairs is preferred to immobilization or passive mobilization. Several EAM approaches are available to therapists; however, the most efficacious for use after zone IV extensor tendon repairs has not been established.Purpose of the StudyTo determine if an optimal EAM approach can be identified for use after zone IV extensor tendon repairs based on current available evidence.MethodsDatabase searching was undertaken on May 25, 2022 using MEDLINE, Embase, and Emcare with further citation searching of published systematic/scoping reviews and searching of the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies involving adults with repaired finger zone IV extensor tendons, managed with an EAM program, were included. Critical appraisal using the Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale was performed.ResultsEleven studies were included, two were of moderate methodological quality, and the remainder was low. Two studies reported results specific to zone IV repairs. Most studies utilized relative motion extension (RME) programs; two utilized a Norwich program, and two other programs were described. High proportions of “good” and “excellent” range of motion (ROM) outcomes were reported. There were no tendon ruptures in the RME or Norwich programs; small numbers of ruptures were reported in other programs.ConclusionsThe included studies reported minimal data on outcomes specific to zone IV extensor tendon repairs. Most studies reported on the outcomes for RME programs which appeared to provide good ROM outcomes with low levels of complications. The evidence obtained in this review was insufficient to determine the optimal EAM program after zone IV extensor tendon repair. It is recommended that future research focus specifically on outcomes of zone IV extensor tendon repairs.Level of EvidenceI.     

Partnering with people living with rheumatoid arthritis for care of their hands: Four case reports using relative motion orthoses

Study DesignCase report.IntroductionDespite better disease control with more effective medications, people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) continue to experience persistent and fluctuating levels of pain, swelling and functional limitations in their hands.PurposeTo describe therapists and people living with RA working together to understand what could be occurring in their hands because of the RA and how relative motion (RM) orthoses may be used to self-manage common hand RA related problems.MethodsCase reports are used to demonstrate how patient self-report, clinical exam, and observation of hand movement and function are integrated into the design of RM orthoses for individuals with RA. The cases are supported by photos and videos, including a personal narrative video exploring 1 persons’ personal perspective on their use of RM orthoses.ResultsCase reports illustrate adaptive and/or protective RME orthoses use for RA related finger malalignment, tendon subluxation, joint pain and instability in the hand. The narrative video also introduces a person living with RA, who speaks candidly about her multiple RM orthoses and how she decides which orthosis is “best” for a given activity and the current level of RA related problems in her hands.DiscussionIt is not unusual for individuals with RA to have multiple RM orthoses, made for different purposes and fabricated from different materials. Mulitple RM orthosis options allows a person to select what is “best” for them, depending on the context of use and priorities or needs.ConclusionPartnering with people living with RA to understand how to use simple, low-profile, adaptive and protective RM orthoses may be an effective way to support self-management of common RA related hand problems.     

“Around the global hand table”: Hand surgeon and therapist perspectives on overcoming barriers to relative motion orthotic intervention in the management of zones V-VI finger extensor tendon repairs

IntroductionAn international survey of therapists cited 2 barriers (physician preference and departmental policy) to the implementation of a relative motion extension (RME) orthosis/early active motion (EAM) approach.Study Designe-surveyPurposeTo glean insight from hand surgeons and hand therapists regarding their awareness and experiences in implementing or not implementing an RME orthosis/EAM approach for management of finger zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs.MethodsTwo e-surveys, one to hand surgeons and the other to hand therapists were distributed. Participants were asked 8-open ended questions with the opportunity for additional comment.ResultsNine of 11 surgeons and 10 of 11 therapists (clinicians/educators/administrators) who were surveyed, participated. All respondents from 7 countries were aware of the RME/EAM approach, with only 1 surgeon and 2 therapists not implementing. Surgeons once aware, quickly implement; therapists in this survey implemented about 2.5 years after learning of the approach. Surgeon use was influenced more by their peers than the evidence while therapist knowledge came from professional meetings. Therapists teaching at university-level and continuing education integrate the approach.DiscussionAlthough the RME orthosis/EAM approach has been around for 4 decades, awareness for the hand surgeons and therapists surveyed has only been over the past 20 years. Surveyed surgeons like to visualize how the RME concept works and therapists depend more on the evidence. To overcome barriers to RME/EAM implementation, several strategies are outlined.ConclusionAlthough a small survey, valuable comments provide insight for addressing the previously cited barriers. Strategies for increasing awareness and fostering implementation of an RME orthosis/EAM approach are offered by international hand surgeons and therapists surveyed regarding the commonly cited barriers of surgeon preference and department procedures.     

Tendon injuries across the world: treatment

This article outlines current status of primary and secondary surgical treatment of flexor and extensor tendon injuries in the hand and rehabilitation regimens worldwide. Unsolved problems associated with tendon repairs in the hand are tendon adhesions, rupture of the repairs, finger stiffness, power of hand motion, and surgical skills. Future development may include improvement of tendon healing through biological approaches, repair techniques, and, in particular, establishment of adequate rehabilitation systems and training of surgeons in some regions of the world.     

Flexor tendon rehabilitation in the 21st century: A systematic review

Study DesignSystematic review.IntroductionThe rehabilitation of patients following flexor tendon injury has progressed from immobilization to true active flexion with the addition of wrist motion over the last 75 years.Purpose of the StudyThis review specifically intended to determine whether there is evidence to support one type of exercise regimen, early passive, place and hold, or true active, as superior for producing safe and maximal range of motion following flexor tendon repair.MethodsThe preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA-P 2015) checklist was utilized to format the review. Both reviewers collaborated on all aspects of the research, including identifying inclusion/exclusion factors, search terms, reading and scoring articles, and authoring the paper. Articles were independently scored by each reviewer using the Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale (SEQES).ResultsA total of nine intervention studies that included a rehabilitative comparison group were systematically reviewed: one pediatric, four comparing passive flexion protocols to place and hold flexion, and four comparing true active flexion to passive and/or place and hold flexion.DiscussionThis review provides moderate to strong evidence that place and hold exercises provide better outcomes than passive flexion protocols for patients with two to six-strand repairs. The studies included in this review suffered from methodological limitations including short timeframes for follow-up, unequal group distribution, and limited attention to repair site strength.ConclusionsBased on a lack of superior benefits following true active motion regimens, there is not sufficient evidence to support true active motion as an effective or preferable choice for flexor tendon rehabilitation at this time.     

Early active mobilization after primary repair of the flexor pollicis longus tendon

BackgroundThere have been few studies regarding primary flexor tendon repair of the thumb following early active mobilization, whereas there have been multiple such studies of the finger. This study examined the outcomes of patients who underwent early active mobilization after primary repair of the flexor pollicis longus tendon.MethodsThis study was a retrospective case series. Between 1993 and 2019, 17 thumbs of 17 consecutive patients with complete flexor pollicis longus tendon lacerations were treated using the Yoshizu #1 technique, followed by early active mobilization. The mean time between injury and primary flexor tendon repair was 2 days. Two thumbs had zone T1 injuries and 15 had zone T2 injuries. Mobilization of the thumb began on the first postoperative day with a combination of active extension and passive and active flexion. The mean follow-up period was 8 months. The percentage of total active motion of the thumb was regarded as the sum of the active motion of the two joints, divided by 140°. Functional outcomes were graded in accordance with the Strickland criteria.ResultsThree repair ruptures occurred in thumbs treated by inexperienced surgeons. Excluding tendon ruptures, the mean percentage of total active motion of the thumb was 83%. The mean active flexion of the interphalangeal and metacarpophalangeal joints was 62° and 64°. The mean extension deficit was 8.8° at the interphalangeal joint and 7.5° at the metacarpophalangeal joint. According to Strickland's criteria, repairs to eight thumbs were ranked excellent, three were good, one was fair, and five were poor.ConclusionsOur results are not inferior to the findings of previous reports regarding early postoperative mobilization after primary flexor pollicis longus tendon repair, in terms of the acquisition of active thumb motion. Poor outcomes result from repair rupture and increased extension deficits of the interphalangeal and metacarpophalangeal joints.     

Extensor tendon injuries in children

INTRODUCTION: This study retrospectively analyzes primary extensor tendon repairs in children younger than 15 years. METHODS: Exclusion criteria were skin loss, devascularization, fractures, or flexor tendon injuries. Fifty patients who had sustained extensor tendon laceration with 53 digits injured were available for review. Treatment consisted of primary repair of the extensor tendon injury within the first 24 hours. The results were assessed by means of total active motion system and by Miller's rating system. The mean follow-up was 2 years. RESULTS: Although 98% of the digits were rated as good or excellent according to the total active motion system and 95% according to Miller's classification, 22% of the fingers showed extension lag or loss of flexion at the last follow-up. DISCUSSION: Pejorative influencing factors were injuries in zones I, II, and III; children younger than 5 years (P < 0.05), and complete tendon laceration. Articular involvement had no significant influence on final outcome.