Efficacy of the Short Splint versus traditional dorsal splint for rehabilitation of Zone II flexor tendon repairs: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Flexor tendon rehabilitation in zone II remains challenging due to the risk of complications such as tendon adhesions and rupture. A previously reported audit of the Manchester Short Splint demonstrated less flexion contracture at the proximal interphalangeal joints at 6 and 12 weeks with greater final range of motion compared with the traditional dorsal forearm splint, without increased tendon rupture. The present study describes the protocol for a randomized controlled trial designed to formally evaluate the short splint.
Methods: This single center randomized controlled trial allocates adults with a single Zone II flexor tendon repair to either a traditional dorsal forearm splint or the Manchester Short Splint. The study is framed to demonstrate superiority of the short splint intervention over the long splint. All tendon repairs use a standard four-strand core repair and epitendinous suture technique. Inclusion criteria for the trial include single finger flexor tendon injury of zone II with up to one but not two simultaneous digital nerve injuries operated on within 4 days of the injury date. Exclusions include children, more complex injuries, those unable to give consent or otherwise co-operate with the trial protocol. Outcomes are assessed at 6 and 12 weeks by a hand therapist blinded to allocation. The primary outcome is total active motion measured with a goniometer. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported measures (Patient Evaluation Measure, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, numerical pain scale) and grip strength at 12 weeks.
Discussion: The study protocol presented aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Manchester Short Splint compared with the traditional dorsal splint in the rehabilitation of Zone II flexor tendon repairs. Earlier observational work suggested potential benefit, but a rigorously designed randomized controlled trial is required to formally assess whether the short splint improves motion without increasing rupture risk. If superiority of the short splint is demonstrated, the findings could support a change in clinical rehabilitation practice and inform the design of a future multicenter trial.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03850210 21.2.19 Retrospectively registered
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT03850210&cntry=&state=&city=&dist= See website for WHO Trial Registration Data Set
Trial Status: Recruitment of first patient 31.3.15. Recruitment completed 6.4.20. Study is ongoing for subsequent patient review and measurements as protocol for the subsequent 12-week period and will conclude 29.6.20.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Peck FH, Bucher CA, Watson JS, Roe A. A comparative study of two methods of controlled mobilization of flexor tendon repairs in zone 2. J Hand Surg Br. 1998, 23: 41-5.
3. Thien TB, Becker JH, Theis JC. Rehabilitation after surgery for flexor tendon injuries in the hand. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004: CD003979.
4. Small JO, Brennen MD, Colville J. Early active mobilization following flexor tendon repair in zone 2. J Hand Surg Br. 1989, 14: 383-91
5. Neiduski RL, Powell RK. Flexor tendon rehabilitation in the 21st century: A systematic review. J Hand Therapy 2019; 32: 165-174.
6. Peck F, Roe AE, Ng CY, Duff C, McGrouther DA, Lees VC. The Manchester short splint: A change to splinting practice in the rehabilitation of zone II flexor tendon repairs. Hand Therapy 2014; 19(2): 47-53.
7. Savage R. The influence of wrist position on the minimum force required for active movement of the interphalangeal joints. J Hand Surg Br 1988; 13(3): 262-8.
8. Woythal L, Homer P, Brorson S. Splints, with or without wrist immobilization, following surgical repair of flexor tendon lesions of the hand: A systematic review. Hand Surg and Rehab 2019; 38: 217-222
9. Kaskutas V, Powell R. The impact of flexor tendon rehabilitation restrictions on individuals' independence with daily activities: implications for hand therapists. J Hand Ther. 2013, 26: 22-8; quiz 9
10. Hardwick JT, Tan JJ, Foster MA and Titley OG. A systematic review of 2-strand versus multistrand core suture techniques and functional outcome after digital flexor tendon repair. J Hand Surg Am 2014; 39(4): 686-695.
11. Vinitpairot C, Yik JH, Haudenschild DR, Szabo RM, Bayne CO. Current trends in the prevention of adhesions after zone 2 flexor tendon repair. Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 2024 Oct;42(10):2149-58.
12. Tang JB. Rehabilitation after flexor tendon repair and others: a safe and efficient protocol. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2021 Oct;46(8): 813-7.
13. Tang JB, Lalonde D, Harhaus L, Sadek AF, Moriya K, Pan ZJ. Flexor tendon repair: recent changes and current methods. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2022 Jan;47(1):31-9.
14. Jia Q, Chen D, Guo J, Luo X, Alimujiang A, Zhang J, Hu N, Liu Y, Xie Z, Ma C. Risk factors associated with tendon adhesions after hand tendon repair. Frontiers in Surgery. 2023 Apr 18;10:1121892.
15. Renberg M, Turesson C, Borén L, Nyman E, Farnebo S. Rehabilitation following flexor tendon injury in Zone 2: a randomized controlled study. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2023 Sep;48(8):783-91.