PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of four different immobilization methods [single sugar tong splint (SSTS), double sugar tong splint (DSTS), short arm cast (SAC), and long arm cast (LAC)] commonly used for restricting forearm rotation in the upper extremity.
METHODS: Forty healthy volunteers were included in the study. Dominant extremities were used for measurements. Basal pronation and supination of the forearm were measured with a custom-made goniometer, and the total rotation arc was calculated without any immobilization. Next, the measurements were repeated with the SAC, LAC, SSTS and DSTS. Each measurement was compared to the baseline value, and the percentage of rotation restriction was calculated.
RESULTS: The most superior restriction rates were observed for the LAC (p = 0.00). No statistically significant difference was detected between the SSTS and DSTS in terms of the restriction of supination, pronation or the rotation arc (p values, 1.00, 0.18, and 0.50, respectively). Statistically significant differences were not detected between the SAC and the SSTS in any of the three parameters (p values, 0.25; 1.00; 1.00, respectively). When the SAC and DSTS were compared, while there was no significant difference between the two methods in pronation (p = 0.50), a statistically significant difference was detected in supination (p = 0.01) and in the total rotation arc (p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: The LAC provides superior results in restricting forearm rotation. The SAC and SSTS had similar effects on forearm rotation. The DSTS, which contains, in addition to the SSTS, a sugar tong portion above the elbow, does not provide additional rotational stability.
METHODS: Forty healthy volunteers were included in the study. Dominant extremities were used for measurements. Basal pronation and supination of the forearm were measured with a custom-made goniometer, and the total rotation arc was calculated without any immobilization. Next, the measurements were repeated with the SAC, LAC, SSTS and DSTS. Each measurement was compared to the baseline value, and the percentage of rotation restriction was calculated.
RESULTS: The most superior restriction rates were observed for the LAC (p = 0.00). No statistically significant difference was detected between the SSTS and DSTS in terms of the restriction of supination, pronation or the rotation arc (p values, 1.00, 0.18, and 0.50, respectively). Statistically significant differences were not detected between the SAC and the SSTS in any of the three parameters (p values, 0.25; 1.00; 1.00, respectively). When the SAC and DSTS were compared, while there was no significant difference between the two methods in pronation (p = 0.50), a statistically significant difference was detected in supination (p = 0.01) and in the total rotation arc (p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: The LAC provides superior results in restricting forearm rotation. The SAC and SSTS had similar effects on forearm rotation. The DSTS, which contains, in addition to the SSTS, a sugar tong portion above the elbow, does not provide additional rotational stability.
摘要：
背景：本研究的目的是比较四种不同固定方法的效果[单糖钳夹板（SSTS），双糖钳夹板（DSTS），短臂铸造(SAC),和长臂铸造（LAC）]通常用于限制上肢的前臂旋转。
方法：纳入40名健康志愿者。显性四肢用于测量。用定制的测角仪测量前臂的基底内旋和外旋，并在没有任何固定的情况下计算总旋转弧。接下来,用SAC重复测量，LAC,SSTS和DSTS。将每个测量值与基线值进行比较，并计算了旋转限制的百分比。
结果：观察到LAC的最高限制率（p=0.00）。SSTS和DSTS在旋光限制方面没有检测到统计学上的显著差异，内旋或旋转弧(p值，分别为1.00、0.18和0.50）。SAC和SSTS在三个参数中的任何一个参数（p值，分别为0.25；1.00；1.00）。当比较SAC和DSTS时，虽然两种方法在内旋方面没有显着差异（p=0.50），在旋后（p=0.01）和总旋转弧（p=0.03）中检测到有统计学意义的差异。
结论：LAC在限制前臂旋转方面提供了优异的结果。SAC和SSTS对前臂旋转具有相似的影响。DSTS,其中包含，除了SSTS,肘部上方的糖钳部分，不提供额外的旋转稳定性。
方法：纳入40名健康志愿者。显性四肢用于测量。用定制的测角仪测量前臂的基底内旋和外旋，并在没有任何固定的情况下计算总旋转弧。接下来,用SAC重复测量，LAC,SSTS和DSTS。将每个测量值与基线值进行比较，并计算了旋转限制的百分比。
结果：观察到LAC的最高限制率（p=0.00）。SSTS和DSTS在旋光限制方面没有检测到统计学上的显著差异，内旋或旋转弧(p值，分别为1.00、0.18和0.50）。SAC和SSTS在三个参数中的任何一个参数（p值，分别为0.25；1.00；1.00）。当比较SAC和DSTS时，虽然两种方法在内旋方面没有显着差异（p=0.50），在旋后（p=0.01）和总旋转弧（p=0.03）中检测到有统计学意义的差异。
结论：LAC在限制前臂旋转方面提供了优异的结果。SAC和SSTS对前臂旋转具有相似的影响。DSTS,其中包含，除了SSTS,肘部上方的糖钳部分，不提供额外的旋转稳定性。
