Comparison of upper extremity fracture impairment and disability in operative and none-operative intervention groups

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 Student Research Office, MSc Student in Occupational Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor of Biostatistics, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4 Akhtar Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Aims: Upper extremity fractures are one of the most common fractures of musculoskeletal system. Medical interventions used for this fractures are "operative" and "none-operative". The main purpose of the present study was investigating fracture impairment and disability in two groups of operative and none-operative interventions.
Materials and Method: In the present descriptive study, 70 adults with upper extremity fracture were selected based on convenience sampling. Participants were then divided into two groups of "operative" (34 participants) and "none-operative" groups (36 participants). Impairment rate and disability score, evaluated using AMA guides (6th ed.) and DASH, respectively, were compared in the two groups. Data analysis was performed using SPSS (v. 19) through running independent t-test (p< 0/05).
Results: There was a significant difference in impairment rate between the two groups of operative and none operative interventions, but no significant difference was observed in the disability score between the two groups.
Conclusion: The results of the present study showed that impairment of none-operative fractures was less than that of the operative group. Since AMA is designed based on ICF, according to findings, it was observed to be a better and more comprehensive tool compared with DASH. Also, the results of the present study can be used for fracture management by rehabilitation clinicians.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Bernstein ML, Chung KC. Hand fractures and their management: an international view. Injury. 2006;37(11):1043-8.##
  2. Chung KC, Spilson SV. The frequency and epidemiology of hand and forearm fractures in the United States. The Journal of hand surgery. 2001;26(5):908-15.##
  3. Gonzalez MH, Jablon M, Weinzweig N. Open fractures of the hand. Journal of the Southern Orthopaedic Association. 1999;8(3):193-202.##
  4. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury. 2006;37(8):691-7.##
  5. Skirven TM, Osterman AL, Fedorczyk J, Amadio PC. Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity, 2-volume set: expert consult: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2011.##
  6. Khan LA, Bradnock TJ, Scott C, Robinson CM. Fractures of the clavicle. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91 :447-460##
  7. McKee MD, Pedersen EM, Jones C, Stephen DJ, Kreder HJ, Schemitsch EH, et al. Deficits following nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88:35-40.##
  8. Potter JM, Jones C, Wild LM, Schemitsch EH, McKee MD. Does delay matter? The restoration of objectively measured shoulder strength and patient-oriented outcome after immediate fixation versus delayed reconstruction of displaced midshaft fractures of the clavicle. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16:514-8.##
  9. Neer CS. Nonunion of the clavicle. JAMA 1960;172:1006-11.##
  10. Rowe CR. An atlas of anatomy and treatment of midclavicular fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1968;58:29-42.##
  11. Robert D. Rondinelli, Elizabeth Genovese, Christopher R. Brigham. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. 6th Edition. American Medical Association:2008##
  12. Stegeman SA, de Jong M, Sier CF, Krijnen P, Duijff JW, van Thiel TP, et al. Displaced midshaft fractures of the clavicle: non-operative treatment versus plate fixation (Sleutel-TRIAL). A multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2011;12(1):196.##
  13. Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society: Nonoperative treatment compared with plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89:1-10.##
  14. Khan LA, Bradnock TJ, Scott C, Robinson CM: Fractures of the clavicle. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91 :447-460.##
  15. Peter L. Althausen. Clinical and financial Comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment of displaced clavicle fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22:608-11.##
  16. Roth KM, Blazar PE, Earp BE, Han R, Leung A. Incidence of displacement after nondisplaced distal radial fractures in adults. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 2013;95(15):1398-402.##
  17. Pal JN, Prahas Biswas AR, Hazra S, Mahato S. Outcome of humeral shaft fractures treated by functional cast brace. Indian journal of orthopaedics. 2015;49(4):408.##
  18. Frederik JT, Anke M, Paul GH, Steven ER. Impairment and Disability After Severe Hand Injuries With Multiple Phalangeal Fractures. J Hand Surgery 2007;32A.##
  19. Mousavi SJ, Parnianpour M, Abedi M, Askary-Ashtiani A, Karimi A, Khorsandi A, Mehdian H. Cultural adaptation and validation of the Persian version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome measure. Clin Rehabil. 2008 Aug;22(8):749-57.##
The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 5, Issue 2
July and August 2016
Pages 115-121

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 August 2015
  • Revise Date: 16 September 2015
  • Accept Date: 07 October 2015
  • First Publish Date: 21 June 2016

Share

How to cite

Statistics