What are we measuring? A critique of range of motion methods currently in use for Dupuytren's disease and recommendations for practice

Background: Range of motion is the most frequently reported measure used in practice to evaluate outcomes. A goniometer is the most reliable tool to assess range of motion yet, the lack of consistency in reporting prevents comparison between studies. The aim of this study is to identify how range of motion is currently assessed and reported in Dupuytren’s disease literature. Following analysis recommendations for practice will be made to enable consistency in future studies for comparability. This paper highlights the variation in range of motion reporting in Dupuytren’s disease. Methods: A Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study design format was used for the search strategy and search terms. Surgery, needle fasciotomy or collagenase injection for primary or recurrent Dupuytren’s disease in adults were included if outcomes were monitored using range of motion to record change. A literature search was performed in May 2013 using subject heading and free-text terms to also capture electronic publications ahead of print. In total 638 publications were identified and following screening 90 articles met the inclusion criteria. Data was extracted and entered onto a spreadsheet for analysis. A thematic analysis was carried out to establish any duplication, resulting in the final range of motion measures identified. Results: Range of motion measurement lacked clarity, with goniometry reportedly used in only 43 of the 90 studies, 16 stated the use of a range of motion protocol. A total of 24 different descriptors were identified describing range of motion in the 90 studies. While some studies reported active range of motion, others reported passive or were unclear. Eight of the 24 categories were identified through thematic analysis as possibly describing the same measure, ‘lack of joint extension’ and accounted for the most frequently used. Conclusions: Published studies lacked clarity in reporting range of motion, preventing data comparison and meta-analysis. Percentage change lacks context and without access to raw data, does not allow direct comparison of baseline characteristics. A clear description of what is being measured within each study was required. It is recommended that range of motion measuring and reporting for Dupuytren’s disease requires consistency to address issues that fall into 3 main categories:- Definition of terms Protocol statement Outcome reportin

Optimal functional outcome measures for assessing treatment for Dupuytren's disease: A systematic review and recommendations for future practice

This article is available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. Copyright © 2013 Ball et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.Background: Dupuytren's disease of the hand is a common condition affecting the palmar fascia, resulting in progressive flexion deformities of the digits and hence limitation of hand function. The optimal treatment remains unclear as outcomes studies have used a variety of measures for assessment. Methods: A literature search was performed for all publications describing surgical treatment, percutaneous needle aponeurotomy or collagenase injection for primary or recurrent Dupuytren’s disease where outcomes had been monitored using functional measures. Results: Ninety-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two studies reported outcomes using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) ranging from validated questionnaires to self-reported measures for return to work and self-rated disability. The Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score was the most utilised patient-reported function measure (n=11). Patient satisfaction was reported by eighteen studies but no single method was used consistently. Range of movement was the most frequent physical measure and was reported in all 91 studies. However, the methods of measurement and reporting varied, with seventeen different techniques being used. Other physical measures included grip and pinch strength and sensibility, again with variations in measurement protocols. The mean follow-up time ranged from 2 weeks to 17 years. Conclusions: There is little consistency in the reporting of outcomes for interventions in patients with Dupuytren’s disease, making it impossible to compare the efficacy of different treatment modalities. Although there are limitations to the existing generic patient reported outcomes measures, a combination of these together with a disease-specific questionnaire, and physical measures of active and passive individual joint Range of movement (ROM), grip and sensibility using standardised protocols should be used for future outcomes studies. As Dupuytren’s disease tends to recur following treatment as well as extend to involve other areas of the hand, follow-up times should be standardised and designed to capture both short and long term outcomes

Incidence of re-amputation following partial first ray amputation associated with diabetes mellitus and peripheral sensory neuropathy: a systematic review.

Diabetes mellitus with peripheral sensory neuropathy frequently results in forefoot ulceration. Ulceration at the first ray level tends to be recalcitrant to local wound care modalities and off-loading techniques. If healing does occur, ulcer recurrence is common. When infection develops, partial first ray amputation in an effort to preserve maximum foot length is often performed. However, the survivorship of partial first ray amputations in this patient population and associated re-amputation rate remain unknown. Therefore, in an effort to determine the actual re-amputation rate following any form of partial first ray amputation in patients with diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy, the authors conducted a systematic review. Only studies involving any form of partial first ray amputation associated with diabetes mellitus and peripheral sensory neuropathy but without critical limb ischemia were included. Our search yielded a total of 24 references with 5 (20.8%) meeting our inclusion criteria involving 435 partial first ray amputations. The weighted mean age of patients was 59 years and the weighted mean follow-up was 26 months. The initial amputation level included the proximal phalanx base 167 (38.4%) times; first metatarsal head resection 96 (22.1%) times; first metatarsal-phalangeal joint disarticulation 53 (12.2%) times; first metatarsal mid-shaft 39 (9%) times; hallux fillet flap 32 (7.4%) times; first metatarsal base 29 (6.7%) times; and partial hallux 19 (4.4%) times. The incidence of re-amputation was 19.8% (86/435). The end stage, most proximal level, following re-amputation was an additional digit 32 (37.2%) times; transmetatarsal 28 (32.6%) times; below-knee 25 (29.1%) times; and LisFranc 1 (1.2%) time. The results of our systematic review reveal that one out of every five patients undergoing any version of a partial first ray amputation will eventually require more proximal re-amputation. These results reveal that partial first ray amputation for patients with diabetes and peripheral sensory neuropathy may not represent a durable, functional, or predictable foot-sparing amputation and that a more proximal amputation, such as a balanced transmetatarsal amputation, as the index amputation may be more beneficial to the patient. However, this remains a matter for conjecture due to the limited data available and, therefore, additional prospective investigations are warranted