Conservative interventions for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers

Background Immobilisation and early motion (protected or unrestricted) are both used following hyperextension injuries to the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint of the finger. Objectives To assess the effects of conservative interventions (non‐surgical management) for treating hyperextension injur...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2013-02, Vol.2013 (2), p.CD009030
Hauptverfasser: Chalmer, Joelle, Blakeway, Megan, Adams, Zoe, Milan, Stephen J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page CD009030
container_title Cochrane database of systematic reviews
container_volume 2013
creator Chalmer, Joelle
Blakeway, Megan
Adams, Zoe
Milan, Stephen J
Chalmer, Joelle
description Background Immobilisation and early motion (protected or unrestricted) are both used following hyperextension injuries to the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint of the finger. Objectives To assess the effects of conservative interventions (non‐surgical management) for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (January 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to January Week 2 2012), EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 03), CINAHL (1950 to 24 January 2012), PEDro (1929 to March 2012), trial registers and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria Randomised and quasi‐randomised studies comparing immobilisation/protected mobilisation/unrestricted mobilisation in participants with PIP joint hyperextension injuries managed non‐surgically. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. There was no pooling of data. Main results Three trials involving 366 people were identified. All three trials, which were over 15 years old, were methodologically flawed with unclear or high risk of bias. None of the studies reported on self assessment of function. One trial compared unrestricted mobility with immobilisation; one trial compared protected mobilisation with immobilisation; and the remaining trial compared immobilisation for one week versus three weeks. None of these trials found statistically significant differences between their intervention groups in various measures of poor outcome, pain and range of movement at six months follow‐up. This lack of difference applied at three years for the comparison between unrestricted mobility with immobilisation. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence from trials testing the need for, and the extent and duration of, immobilisation to inform on the key conservative management decisions for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/14651858.CD009030.pub2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11403558</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1314337115</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4262-36571dd1ae507204f6ffed0c4a924a9a60944df2a9f2bf77172b35890203821b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUctu2zAQJIoUTZr2FwIdc7G7fOlxKhKnLyBAL-2ZoKWlRUMWVVJy7L_PGo6NtJceCC53Zmd2uYzdcJhzAPGJq1zzUpfzxQNABRLmw7QUb9jVAZgdkItX8SV7n9IaQOaVKN6xSyGVBl3lV2xahD5h3NrRbzHz_Ugx9qOnbOZCzMaIBPWrrN0PGHE3Yp8IJOZ6ih5TFlw2tpgNMez8xnZHiaG1ne1XSO91oMyZ5kgKY_rA3jrbJfz4cl-z31-__Fp8nz3-_PZjcfc4q5XIxUzmuuBNwy1qKAQolzuHDdTKVoKOzaFSqnHCVk4sXVHwQiylLisQIEvBl_KafT7q0udssKlpsmg7M0RqNe5NsN78jfS-NauwNZwrkFqXpHD7ohDDnwnTaDY-1djReBimZLjkSsqCc03U_EitY0gpojv7cDCHpZnT0sxpaQd3QYU3r7s8l522RIT7I-HJd7g3dajbSP7_0f3H5RmbIKsx</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1314337115</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Conservative interventions for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Cochrane Library</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Chalmer, Joelle ; Blakeway, Megan ; Adams, Zoe ; Milan, Stephen J ; Chalmer, Joelle</creator><creatorcontrib>Chalmer, Joelle ; Blakeway, Megan ; Adams, Zoe ; Milan, Stephen J ; Chalmer, Joelle</creatorcontrib><description>Background Immobilisation and early motion (protected or unrestricted) are both used following hyperextension injuries to the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint of the finger. Objectives To assess the effects of conservative interventions (non‐surgical management) for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (January 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to January Week 2 2012), EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 03), CINAHL (1950 to 24 January 2012), PEDro (1929 to March 2012), trial registers and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria Randomised and quasi‐randomised studies comparing immobilisation/protected mobilisation/unrestricted mobilisation in participants with PIP joint hyperextension injuries managed non‐surgically. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. There was no pooling of data. Main results Three trials involving 366 people were identified. All three trials, which were over 15 years old, were methodologically flawed with unclear or high risk of bias. None of the studies reported on self assessment of function. One trial compared unrestricted mobility with immobilisation; one trial compared protected mobilisation with immobilisation; and the remaining trial compared immobilisation for one week versus three weeks. None of these trials found statistically significant differences between their intervention groups in various measures of poor outcome, pain and range of movement at six months follow‐up. This lack of difference applied at three years for the comparison between unrestricted mobility with immobilisation. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence from trials testing the need for, and the extent and duration of, immobilisation to inform on the key conservative management decisions for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1465-1858</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1469-493X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1465-1858</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-493X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009030.pub2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23450596</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>Appendicular skeleton ; Finger Injuries ; Finger Injuries - therapy ; Finger Joint ; Humans ; Immobilization ; Immobilization - methods ; Injuries, orthopaedics &amp; trauma ; Insurance medicine ; Ligaments, Articular ; Ligaments, Articular - injuries ; Medicine General &amp; Introductory Medical Sciences ; Movement ; Orthopaedics &amp; trauma ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Return to Work ; Sick Leave ; Soft tissue injuries ; Soft‐tissue injuries of the appendicular skeleton (also see headings for specific tissues and locations) ; Sprains and Strains ; Sprains and Strains - therapy ; Treatment</subject><ispartof>Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013-02, Vol.2013 (2), p.CD009030</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4262-36571dd1ae507204f6ffed0c4a924a9a60944df2a9f2bf77172b35890203821b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4262-36571dd1ae507204f6ffed0c4a924a9a60944df2a9f2bf77172b35890203821b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27915,27916</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23450596$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chalmer, Joelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blakeway, Megan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Zoe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milan, Stephen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chalmer, Joelle</creatorcontrib><title>Conservative interventions for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers</title><title>Cochrane database of systematic reviews</title><addtitle>Cochrane Database Syst Rev</addtitle><description>Background Immobilisation and early motion (protected or unrestricted) are both used following hyperextension injuries to the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint of the finger. Objectives To assess the effects of conservative interventions (non‐surgical management) for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (January 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to January Week 2 2012), EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 03), CINAHL (1950 to 24 January 2012), PEDro (1929 to March 2012), trial registers and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria Randomised and quasi‐randomised studies comparing immobilisation/protected mobilisation/unrestricted mobilisation in participants with PIP joint hyperextension injuries managed non‐surgically. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. There was no pooling of data. Main results Three trials involving 366 people were identified. All three trials, which were over 15 years old, were methodologically flawed with unclear or high risk of bias. None of the studies reported on self assessment of function. One trial compared unrestricted mobility with immobilisation; one trial compared protected mobilisation with immobilisation; and the remaining trial compared immobilisation for one week versus three weeks. None of these trials found statistically significant differences between their intervention groups in various measures of poor outcome, pain and range of movement at six months follow‐up. This lack of difference applied at three years for the comparison between unrestricted mobility with immobilisation. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence from trials testing the need for, and the extent and duration of, immobilisation to inform on the key conservative management decisions for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints.</description><subject>Appendicular skeleton</subject><subject>Finger Injuries</subject><subject>Finger Injuries - therapy</subject><subject>Finger Joint</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immobilization</subject><subject>Immobilization - methods</subject><subject>Injuries, orthopaedics &amp; trauma</subject><subject>Insurance medicine</subject><subject>Ligaments, Articular</subject><subject>Ligaments, Articular - injuries</subject><subject>Medicine General &amp; Introductory Medical Sciences</subject><subject>Movement</subject><subject>Orthopaedics &amp; trauma</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Return to Work</subject><subject>Sick Leave</subject><subject>Soft tissue injuries</subject><subject>Soft‐tissue injuries of the appendicular skeleton (also see headings for specific tissues and locations)</subject><subject>Sprains and Strains</subject><subject>Sprains and Strains - therapy</subject><subject>Treatment</subject><issn>1465-1858</issn><issn>1469-493X</issn><issn>1465-1858</issn><issn>1469-493X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>RWY</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUctu2zAQJIoUTZr2FwIdc7G7fOlxKhKnLyBAL-2ZoKWlRUMWVVJy7L_PGo6NtJceCC53Zmd2uYzdcJhzAPGJq1zzUpfzxQNABRLmw7QUb9jVAZgdkItX8SV7n9IaQOaVKN6xSyGVBl3lV2xahD5h3NrRbzHz_Ugx9qOnbOZCzMaIBPWrrN0PGHE3Yp8IJOZ6ih5TFlw2tpgNMez8xnZHiaG1ne1XSO91oMyZ5kgKY_rA3jrbJfz4cl-z31-__Fp8nz3-_PZjcfc4q5XIxUzmuuBNwy1qKAQolzuHDdTKVoKOzaFSqnHCVk4sXVHwQiylLisQIEvBl_KafT7q0udssKlpsmg7M0RqNe5NsN78jfS-NauwNZwrkFqXpHD7ohDDnwnTaDY-1djReBimZLjkSsqCc03U_EitY0gpojv7cDCHpZnT0sxpaQd3QYU3r7s8l522RIT7I-HJd7g3dajbSP7_0f3H5RmbIKsx</recordid><startdate>20130228</startdate><enddate>20130228</enddate><creator>Chalmer, Joelle</creator><creator>Blakeway, Megan</creator><creator>Adams, Zoe</creator><creator>Milan, Stephen J</creator><creator>Chalmer, Joelle</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</general><scope>7PX</scope><scope>RWY</scope><scope>ZYTZH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130228</creationdate><title>Conservative interventions for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers</title><author>Chalmer, Joelle ; Blakeway, Megan ; Adams, Zoe ; Milan, Stephen J ; Chalmer, Joelle</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4262-36571dd1ae507204f6ffed0c4a924a9a60944df2a9f2bf77172b35890203821b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Appendicular skeleton</topic><topic>Finger Injuries</topic><topic>Finger Injuries - therapy</topic><topic>Finger Joint</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immobilization</topic><topic>Immobilization - methods</topic><topic>Injuries, orthopaedics &amp; trauma</topic><topic>Insurance medicine</topic><topic>Ligaments, Articular</topic><topic>Ligaments, Articular - injuries</topic><topic>Medicine General &amp; Introductory Medical Sciences</topic><topic>Movement</topic><topic>Orthopaedics &amp; trauma</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Return to Work</topic><topic>Sick Leave</topic><topic>Soft tissue injuries</topic><topic>Soft‐tissue injuries of the appendicular skeleton (also see headings for specific tissues and locations)</topic><topic>Sprains and Strains</topic><topic>Sprains and Strains - therapy</topic><topic>Treatment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chalmer, Joelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blakeway, Megan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Zoe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milan, Stephen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chalmer, Joelle</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Cochrane Library</collection><collection>Cochrane Library</collection><collection>Cochrane Library (Open Aceess)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Cochrane database of systematic reviews</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chalmer, Joelle</au><au>Blakeway, Megan</au><au>Adams, Zoe</au><au>Milan, Stephen J</au><au>Chalmer, Joelle</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Conservative interventions for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers</atitle><jtitle>Cochrane database of systematic reviews</jtitle><addtitle>Cochrane Database Syst Rev</addtitle><date>2013-02-28</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>2013</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>CD009030</spage><pages>CD009030-</pages><issn>1465-1858</issn><issn>1469-493X</issn><eissn>1465-1858</eissn><eissn>1469-493X</eissn><abstract>Background Immobilisation and early motion (protected or unrestricted) are both used following hyperextension injuries to the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint of the finger. Objectives To assess the effects of conservative interventions (non‐surgical management) for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (January 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to January Week 2 2012), EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 03), CINAHL (1950 to 24 January 2012), PEDro (1929 to March 2012), trial registers and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria Randomised and quasi‐randomised studies comparing immobilisation/protected mobilisation/unrestricted mobilisation in participants with PIP joint hyperextension injuries managed non‐surgically. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. There was no pooling of data. Main results Three trials involving 366 people were identified. All three trials, which were over 15 years old, were methodologically flawed with unclear or high risk of bias. None of the studies reported on self assessment of function. One trial compared unrestricted mobility with immobilisation; one trial compared protected mobilisation with immobilisation; and the remaining trial compared immobilisation for one week versus three weeks. None of these trials found statistically significant differences between their intervention groups in various measures of poor outcome, pain and range of movement at six months follow‐up. This lack of difference applied at three years for the comparison between unrestricted mobility with immobilisation. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence from trials testing the need for, and the extent and duration of, immobilisation to inform on the key conservative management decisions for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints.</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</pub><pmid>23450596</pmid><doi>10.1002/14651858.CD009030.pub2</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1465-1858
ispartof Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013-02, Vol.2013 (2), p.CD009030
issn 1465-1858
1469-493X
1465-1858
1469-493X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11403558
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Cochrane Library; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Appendicular skeleton
Finger Injuries
Finger Injuries - therapy
Finger Joint
Humans
Immobilization
Immobilization - methods
Injuries, orthopaedics & trauma
Insurance medicine
Ligaments, Articular
Ligaments, Articular - injuries
Medicine General & Introductory Medical Sciences
Movement
Orthopaedics & trauma
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Return to Work
Sick Leave
Soft tissue injuries
Soft‐tissue injuries of the appendicular skeleton (also see headings for specific tissues and locations)
Sprains and Strains
Sprains and Strains - therapy
Treatment
title Conservative interventions for treating hyperextension injuries of the proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T04%3A44%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Conservative%20interventions%20for%20treating%20hyperextension%20injuries%20of%20the%20proximal%20interphalangeal%20joints%20of%20the%20fingers&rft.jtitle=Cochrane%20database%20of%20systematic%20reviews&rft.au=Chalmer,%20Joelle&rft.date=2013-02-28&rft.volume=2013&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=CD009030&rft.pages=CD009030-&rft.issn=1465-1858&rft.eissn=1465-1858&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009030.pub2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1314337115%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1314337115&rft_id=info:pmid/23450596&rfr_iscdi=true