Treatment of trigger finger with metacarpophalangeal joint blocking orthosis vs relative motion extension orthosis: A randomized clinical trial

Yendi B., ATILGAN E., Namaldi S., Kuru C. A.

Journal of Hand Therapy, 2024 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Basım Tarihi: 2024
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.jht.2023.10.008
  • Dergi Adı: Journal of Hand Therapy
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Biotechnology Research Abstracts, CINAHL, MEDLINE
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Function, Pain, Relative motion splint, Satisfaction, Static splint, Triggering
  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Background: The metacarpophalangeal joint blocking orthosis (MCPJ-BO) is one of the first-line orthotic treatment for patients with trigger finger (TF). Relative motion extension orthosis (RME-O) has recently emerged as a treatment option for various hand disorders involving TF. Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 6 weeks of orthotic treatment with the MCPJ-BO and the RME-O for pain relief. Function and satisfaction with the orthosis were assessed as secondary objectives. Study design: Randomized clinical study. Methods: Thirty patients with an average age of 50 years with Froimson stage 1-3 A1 pulley triggering participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to either the MCPJ-BO (n = 15; 10 females, five males) or the RME-O group (n = 15; 12 females, three males). The orthoses were worn full time for 6 weeks. All patients received patient education, activity modification, and flexor tendon gliding exercises as part of the rehabilitation program. Pre- and post-assessments included Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, and Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology questionnaire. The Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to analyze the difference between the two groups. Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups in pain and function before treatment (p < 0.05). Within-group comparisons indicated that both orthoses relieved pain, but the MCPJ-BO group achieved greater pain relief (p = 0.001). There was a significant improvement in function in the MCPJ-BO group, with a mean change of 12.7 (p = 0.0001). The overall success rates for the MCPJ-BO group and RME-O group were 60% and 27%, respectively. Patients in both groups had high satisfaction with the orthosis. Conclusions: MCPJ-BO and RME-O could be used for pain relief in the treatment of TF. The MCPJ-BO appears to be more effective than the RME-O in improving function.