Comparison of the efficacy of a neutral wrist splint and wrist splint with lumbrical unit for the treatment of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of a neutral wrist splint or a wrist splint with an additional metacarpophalangeal (MCP) unit on pain, function, grip and pinch strength in patients with mild-to-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Methods: Twenty four patients received conservative treatment using either the neutral wrist splint or wrist splint with the MCP unit for a period of 6 weeks. Primary outcome measures were pain, function, grip and pinch strength. Data was collected immediately before and after using the two types of splints at baseline (0 weeks) and 6 weeks. Statistical analysis was performed using the paired t-test and independent T-test. Results: Compared to baseline, both the neutral wrist splint and the wrist splint with an MCP unit significantly decreased pain, increased function and pinch and grip strength. Comparisons of the two types of splints for grip (P =0.675) and pinch strength (P =0.650) revealed that there were no significant differences between the two after 6 weeks of wear. However, there were significant differences in pain levels (P =0.022) and the DASH score (P =0.027) between the two types of splints from baseline to 6 weeks. Conclusion: The wrist splint with an MCP unit was more effective than the neutral wrist splint in pain reduction and improvement of function

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions.

BACKGROUND: Assistive products are items which allow older people and people with disabilities to be able to live a healthy, productive and dignified life. It has been estimated that approximately 1.5% of the world's population need a prosthesis or orthosis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review the evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions. METHODS: Literature searches, completed in September 2015, were carried out in fourteen databases between years 1995 and 2015. The search results were independently screened by two reviewers. For the purpose of this manuscript, only randomized controlled trials which examined interventions using orthotic or prosthetic devices were selected for data extraction and synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 342 randomised controlled trials were identified (319 English language and 23 non-English language). Only 4 of these randomised controlled trials examined prosthetic interventions and the rest examined orthotic interventions. These orthotic interventions were categorised based on the medical conditions/injuries of the participants. From these studies, this review focused on the medical condition/injuries with the highest number of randomised controlled trials (osteoarthritis, fracture, stroke, carpal tunnel syndrome, plantar fasciitis, anterior cruciate ligament, diabetic foot, rheumatoid and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankle sprain, cerebral palsy, lateral epicondylitis and low back pain). The included articles were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Details of the clinical population examined, the type of orthotic/prosthetic intervention, the comparator/s and the outcome measures were extracted. Effect sizes and odds ratios were calculated for all outcome measures, where possible. CONCLUSIONS: At present, for prosthetic and orthotic interventions, the scientific literature does not provide sufficient high quality research to allow strong conclusions on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness