Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Prospective randomized trial of continuous passive motion versus physical therapy after arthroscopic release of elbow contracture
O'Driscoll SW, Lievano JLR, Morrey ME, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Shukla D, Olson T, Fitzsimmons JS, Vaichinger AM, Shields M
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery -- American Volume 2022 Mar 2;104(5):430-440
clinical trial
6/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: Continuous passive motion (CPM) has been used for decades, but we are not aware of any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which CPM has been compared with physical therapy (PT) for rehabilitation following release of elbow contracture. METHODS: In this single-blinded, single-center RCT, we randomly assigned patients undergoing arthroscopic release of elbow contracture to a rehabilitation protocol involving either CPM or PT. The primary outcomes were the rate of recovery and the arc of elbow motion (range of motion) at 1 year. The rate of recovery was evaluated by measuring range of motion at 6 weeks and 3 months. The secondary outcomes included other range-of-motion-related outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), flexion strength and endurance, grip strength, and forearm circumference at multiple time points. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients were assigned to receive CPM, and 27 were assigned to receive PT. At 1 year, CPM was superior to PT with regard to the range of motion, with an estimated treatment difference of 9 degrees (95% confidence interval (CI) 3 degrees to 16 degrees; p = 0.007). Similarly, the use of CPM led to a greater range of motion at 6 weeks and 3 months than PT. The percentage of lost motion recovered at 1 year was higher in the CPM group (51%) than in the PT group (36%) (p = 0.01). The probability of restoring a functional range of motion at 1 year was 62% higher in the CPM group than in the PT group (risk ratio for functional range of motion, 1.62; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.61; p = 0.04). PROM scores were similar in the 2 groups at all time points, except for a difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) elbow function subscale, in favor of CPM, at 6 weeks. The use of CPM decreased swelling and reduced the loss of flexion strength, flexion endurance, and grip strength on day 3, with no between-group differences thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing arthroscopic release of elbow contracture, those who received CPM obtained a faster recovery and a greater range of motion at 1 year, with a higher chance of restoration of functional elbow motion than those who underwent routine PT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level I.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help