An Experimental Study Comparing Active Mobilization to Passive Flexion-Active Extension-Active Flexion After Flexor Tendon Repair in Zone 2

作者：Lee, Hongliang; Hou, Zhidian; Liu, Peng; Lee, Yang; Ding, Zihai^*; Zheng, Xuefeng

来源：Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume, 2013, 38A(4): 672-676.

DOI：10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.01.020

• Biomechanical properties
• early mobilization
• flexor tendon repair
• range of motion
• zone 2

Purpose Both passive flexion-active extension and active rehabilitation have shown advantages and disadvantages in tendon healing. The purpose of this study was to measure the effect of a combination of these 2 rehabilitation protocols.
Methods A tendon injury model was used in white Leghorn chickens. Thirty-two animals were randomly assigned into 4 groups. We compared an unrestricted active flexion rehabilitation (UA) group with 3 groups starting passive flexion, active extension, and active flexion (PAA) at 5, 9.5 and 14 days after repair. The tensile properties and range of motion of the 3 interphalangeal joints were evaluated for 3 postoperative weeks.
Results In terms of tensile properties of the operated foot, PAA-14 was higher than any other group, and PAA-5 was the lowest. There was no significant difference between the PAA-9.5 and UA. For the range of motion, there were significant differences between all 4 groups: UA increased the most, PAA-14 increased the least, and PAA-5 increased more than PAA-9.5. For the rupture rate, UA and PAA-5 were higher than were PAA-9.5 and PAA-14.
Conclusions The results indicate that the PAA-9.5 and UA may give the best balance (tensile properties, range of motion, rupture rates) of these rehabilitation protocols. PPA-9.5 and UA had similar moderate tensile properties. When considering an increased range of motion, the UA method may be the most appropriate despite its higher rupture rate. When considering a lower rupture rate, PAA-9.5 may be the most suitable. (J Hand Surg 2013;38A:672-676.

• 出版日期2013-4
• 单位南方医科大学