Effectiveness of edema management techniques for subacute hand edema: A systematic review

Study Design: Systematic review. Introduction: Prolonged hand edema can have detrimental effects on range of motion and function. There is no consensus on how best to manage traumatic subacute edema. This is the first systematic review which examines the clinical effectiveness of edema treatments on hand volume. Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the evidence of effectiveness of treatments for sub-acute hand edema. Methods: A literature search of AMED, CINAHL, Embase, and OVID MEDLINE (from inception to August 2015) was undertaken. Studies were selected if they met the following inclusion criteria: randomized controlled or controlled trials in adults who have subacute swelling after a recent upper limb musculoskeletal trauma or cerebral vascular attack or after surgery. Two independent assessors rated study quality and risk of bias using the 24-point MacDermid Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale (SEQES). Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Study quality ranged from 23 to 41 out of 48 points on the SEQES. A total of 16 edema interventions were evaluated across the studies. Due to heterogeneity of the patient characteristics, interventions, and outcomes assessed, it was not possible to pool the results from all studies. Therefore, a narrative best evidence synthesis was undertaken. There is low to moderate quality evidence with limited confidence in the effect estimate to support the use of manual edema mobilization methods in conjunction with standard therapy to reduce problematic hand edema. Conclusion: Manual edema mobilization techniques should be considered in conjunction with conventional therapies, in cases of excessive edema or when the edema has not responded to conventional treatment alone; however, manual edema mobilization is not advocated as a routine intervention

How should interventions to treat hand oedema be delivered? An online Delphi Consensus Method

Introduction: Hand oedema (swelling) is a common consequence of hand trauma or surgery, but there is little agreement on how interventions to treat hand oedema should be delivered in practice. The purpose of this study was to engage a group of self-identified hand therapy experts to develop consensus on how four commonly used oedema management treatments should be implemented, which could be used in clinical practice or future clinical trials. Method: A web-based Delphi study was conducted with eight volunteer hand therapists who met the pre-defined eligibility criteria for an ‘expert’ and were members of the British Association of Hand Therapists (BAHT). An a priori level of agreement was set at 75%. Interventions requiring consensus were decided on as a result of a previous national survey of practice and consisted of compression, elevation, massage and kinesiology tape. Results: A total of 25 items were discussed across 3 rounds. This ranged from 23 items in round 1, to three items in round 3. In round 1, consensus was reached on 7/23 (30%) items. The required 75% consensus was reached on 14 items in round 2 and 1/3 items achieved consensus in round 3. Massage was the only treatment that required a third round. Discussion: Consensus was reached on intervention description for three of the four modalities including the materials used (what), method of application including duration and frequency (when and how much) and tailoring or modifications. Two questions relating to massage did not reach the required consensus threshold and a majority agreement was accepted. The small panel size is a limitation and may affect the credibility of the consensus reached

Single, intra-articular treatment with 6 ml hylan G-F 20 in patients with symptomatic primary osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo controlled trial

International audienceObjectives: The primary objective was to compare a single, 6 ml, intra-articular injection of hylan G-F 20 with placebo in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The safety of a repeat injection of hylan G-F 20 was also assessed. Methods: Patients with primary osteoarthritis knee pain were randomly assigned to arthrocentesis plus a 6 ml intra-articular injection of either hylan G-F 20 or placebo in a prospective, double-blind (one injector/one blinded observer) study. Results were evaluated at 4, 8, 12, 18 and 26 weeks post-injection. The primary outcome criterion was change from baseline over 26 weeks in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index A pain. Secondary outcome measures included WOMAC A1 and C, patient global assessment (PGA) and clinical observer global assessment (COGA) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, Osteoarthritis Research Society International responder rates. A 4-week, open, repeat treatment phase evaluated safety only. Results: A total of 253 patients (Kellgren-Lawrence grade II or III) was randomly assigned. Patients receiving hylan G-F 20 experienced statistically significantly greater improvements in WOMAC A pain scores (-0.15, SE 0.076, p=0.047), and several of the secondary outcome measures (WOMAC A1, PGA and COGA), than patients receiving placebo. There was no difference between the safety results of the two groups. No increased risk of local adverse events was observed in the open, repeat treatment phase. Conclusions: This placebo-controlled study demonstrated that, in patients with knee osteoarthritis, a single 6 ml intra-articular injection of hylan G-F 20 is safe and effective in providing statistically significant, clinically relevant pain relief over 26 weeks, with a modest difference versus placebo

Clinical assessment of hand oedema: A systematic review

Introduction: Assessment of oedema after trauma or surgery is important to determine whether treatment is effective and to detect change over time. Volumetry is referred to as the ‘gold standard’ method of measuring volume. However, this has practical limitations and other methods are available. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the psychometric properties of alternative methods used to assess hand oedema. Methods: A search of electronic bibliographic databases was undertaken for any studies published in English reporting the psychometric evaluation of a method for measuring hand oedema, in an adult population with hand swelling from surgery, trauma or stroke. The Consensus‐based Standards for the Selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to evaluate the methodological quality. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Three methods were identified assessing hand oedema: perometry, visual inspection and the figure-of-eight tape measure, all were compared to volumetry. Four different psychometric properties were assessed. Studies scored fair or poor on COSMIN criteria. There is low-quality evidence supporting the use of the figure-of-eight tape measure to assess hand volume. The perometer systematically overestimated volume and visual estimation had poor sensitivity and specificity. Discussion: The figure-of-eight tape measure is the best alternative to volumetry for hand oedema. Benefits include reduced cost and time while having comparable reliability to the ‘gold standard’. Further research is needed to compare methods in patients with greater variability of conditions and with isolated digit oedema. Visual estimation of hand oedema is not recommended

Power grip, pinch grip, manual muscle testing or thenar atrophy - which should be assessed as a motor outcome after carpal tunnel decompression? A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Objective assessment of motor function is frequently used to evaluate outcome after surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However a range of outcome measures are used and there appears to be no consensus on which measure of motor function effectively captures change. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the methods used to assess motor function in randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions for CTS. A secondary aim was to evaluate which instruments reflect clinical change and are psychometrically robust.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The bibliographic databases Medline, AMED and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions for CTS. Data on instruments used, methods of assessment and results of tests of motor function was extracted by two independent reviewers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-two studies were retrieved which included performance based assessments of motor function. Nineteen studies assessed power grip dynamometry, fourteen studies used both power and pinch grip dynamometry, eight used manual muscle testing and five assessed the presence or absence of thenar atrophy. Several studies used multiple tests of motor function. Two studies included both power and pinch strength and reported descriptive statistics enabling calculation of effect sizes to compare the relative responsiveness of grip and pinch strength within study samples. The study findings suggest that tip pinch is more responsive than lateral pinch or power grip up to 12 weeks following surgery for CTS.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although used most frequently and known to be reliable, power and key pinch dynamometry are not the most valid or responsive tools for assessing motor outcome up to 12 weeks following surgery for CTS. Tip pinch dynamometry more specifically targets the thenar musculature and appears to be more responsive. Manual muscle testing, which in theory is most specific to the thenar musculature, may be more sensitive if assessed using a hand held dynamometer – the Rotterdam Intrinsic Handheld Myometer. However further research is needed to evaluate its reliability and responsiveness and establish the most efficient and psychometrically robust method of evaluating motor function following surgery for CTS.</p

Utilization of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging for resumption of athletic activities following COVID-19 infection: An expert consensus document on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention (CVRI) Leadership and endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR)

The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by infection with severe acute respiratory suyndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is now entering its 4th year with little evidence of abatement. As of December 2022, the World Health Organization Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard reported 643 million cumulative confirmed cases of COVID-19 worldwide and 98 million in the United States alone as the country with the highest number of cases. While pneumonia with lung injury has been the manifestation of COVID-19 principally responsible for morbidity and mortality, myocardial inflammation and systolic dysfunction though uncommon are well-recognized features that also associate with adverse prognosis. Given the broad swath of the population infected with COVID-19, the large number of affected professional, collegiate, and amateur athletes raises concern regarding the safe resumption of athletic activity (return to play, RTP) following resolution of infection. A variety of different testing combinations that leverage the electrocardiogram, echocardiography, circulating cardiac biomarkers, and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging have been proposed and implemented to mitigate risk. CMR in particular affords high sensitivity for myocarditis but has been employed and interpreted non-uniformly in the context of COVID-19 thereby raising uncertainty as to the generalizability and clinical relevance of findings with respect to RTP. This consensus document synthesizes available evidence to contextualize the appropriate utilization of CMR in the RTP assessment of athletes with prior COVID-19 infection to facilitate informed, evidence-based decisions, while identifying knowledge gaps that merit further investigation