PURPOSE: To identify types of orthoses (including relative motion), effectiveness, and outcome measurements used to non-surgically manage adult and pediatric trigger finger.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.
METHODS: The study was undertaken according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 Statement and registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registry, number CRD42022322515. Two independent authors electronically and manually searched, and screened 4 databases; selected articles following pre-set eligibility criteria; assessed the quality of the evidence using the Structured Effectiveness for Quality Evaluation of Study; and extracted the data.
RESULTS: Of the 11 articles included, 2 involved pediatric trigger finger and 9 adult trigger finger. Orthoses for pediatric trigger finger positioned finger(s), hand, and/or wrist of children in neutral extension. In adults, a single joint was immobilized by the orthosis, blocking either the metacarpophalangeal joint or the proximal or distal interphalangeal joint. All studies reported positive results with statistically significant improvements and medium to large effect size to almost every outcome measure, including the Number of Triggering Events in Ten Active Fist 1.37, Frequency of Triggering from 2.07 to 2.54, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure from 0.46 to 1.88, Visual Analogue Pain Scale from 0.92 to 2.00, and Numeric Rating Pain Scale from 0.49 to 1.31. Severity tools and patient-rated outcome measures were used with the validity and reliability of some unknown.
CONCLUSIONS: Orthoses are effective for non-surgical management of pediatric and adult trigger finger using various orthotic options. Although used in practice, evidence for the use of relative motion orthosis is absent. High-quality studies based on sound research questions and design using reliable and valid outcome measures are needed.
METHODS: An online English-language survey was distributed to 90 occupational therapists and physiotherapists including MSHT members and non-members. Participation required management of at least one extensor tendon repair in the preceding year. Five approaches were surveyed: immobilisation, early passive motion (EPM) with dynamic splinting, and early active motion (EAM) delivered by resting hand (RH), palmar resting interphalangeal joints free (PR), and relative motion extension (RME) splints.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven of the 53 therapists (68%) who commenced the survey completed it. The most used approach was dynamic/EPM (28%), followed by RH/immobilisation (22%) and RH/EAM (22%). A preference for RME/EAM was identified with implementation barriers being surgeon preference and hand therapist confidence.
DISCUSSION: Approach selection for Malaysian therapists differed from the combined IFSHT and Asia-Pacific respondents, with the former using dynamic/EPM and RH/immobilisation compared to IFSHT respondents who predominately used RME/EAM and PR/EAM. This survey provides valuable insights into Malaysian hand therapists' practices. If implementation barriers and therapist confidence are addressed, Malaysian practice patterns may change to better align with current evidence.