Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Hand Surgery (British and European Volume)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by CHESTER, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by TITLEY, O. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by CHESTER, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by TITLEY, O. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Articles

A Prospective, Controlled, Randomized Trial Comparing Early Active Extension with Passive Extension Using a Dynamic Splint in the Rehabilitation of Repaired Extensor Tendons

D. L. CHESTER
S. BEALE
L. BEVERIDGE
J. D. NANCARROW
O. G. TITLEY

From the West Midlands Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Wordsley Hospital, Stream Road, Stourbridge, West Midlands, UK

Correspondence: Mr Darren L. Chester, 26 Kingfisher Court, Alvechurch, Worcestershire B48 7PU, UK. E-mail: Darren_chester{at}hotmail.com

This prospective, randomized, controlled trial compared two methods of rehabilitating extensor tendon repairs in zones IV–VIII. Group A patients followed an early active mobilization regimen and Group B patients followed a dynamic splintage regimen. Data on 19 patients in Group A and 17 patients in Group B were collected at 4 weeks and at final follow-up (3 months median follow-up for both groups). Extension lag, flexion deficit and total active motion (TAM) were measured. At 4 weeks, patients in Group B had a better TAM (median 87%, range 56–102%) compared to patients in Group A (median 77%, range 52–97%). At final follow-up, there were no significant differences in the results of the two groups. There were no ruptures in either group.

Journal of Hand Surgery (British and European Volume), Vol. 27, No. 3, 283-288 (2002)
DOI: 10.1054/jhsb.2001.0745
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?