A comparison of prefabricated and custom made resting hand splints for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Objective:

To compare prefabricated and custom resting hand splints and establish the feasibility of splinting research for larger scale trials.

Design:

A Randomized controlled pilot study where the randomization unit was each hand, rather than each individual.

Setting:

Thirty-two-bed spinal cord injury and multi-trauma rehabilitation unit in an urban academic rehabilitation center.

Subjects:

Thirty-six hands from 19 individuals with cervical spinal cord injury were enrolled during their acute rehabilitation stay.

Interventions:

Each eligible hand was randomized to receive a custom or prefabricated resting hand splint for night use.

Main measures:

The Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensation and Prehension (GRASSP) was completed at both admission and discharge, and a structured interview was completed at discharge.

Results:

No difference existed in GRASSP outcomes or user preference between custom and prefabricated resting hand splints. Mann-Whitney tests indicated that there was no significant difference in qualitative prehension scores (U = 141, P = 0.522) nor quantitative prehension scores (U = 135, P = 0.382) between groups. Adherence to the splinting program was high (18 out of 19 participants), and no adverse effects occurred. Four themes emerged from the participant comments: the participants felt splints were helpful in their recovery; they found it challenging to direct their caregivers to help with the splints; they needed to take ownership for managing their splints; and they wished they received more education on splint rationale.

Conclusion:

There was no obvious difference in outcome or user preference between prefabricated and custom resting hand splints.

Keywords

Spinal cord injury splint orthosis hand function occupational therapy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center. Spinal cord injury facts and figures at a glance, https://www.nscisc.uab.edu/Public/Facts%20and%20Figures%202019%20-%20Final.pdf (2019, accessed 24 Apr 24 2020)

Anderson

KD.

Targeting recovery: priorities of the spinal cord-injured population. J Neurotrauma 2004; 21(10): 1371–1383.

Harvey

Glinsky

Bowden

JL.

The effectiveness of 22 commonly administered physiotherapy interventions for people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord 2016; 54(11): 914–923.

Harvey

Lin

C-W

Glinsky

, et al. The effectiveness of physical interventions for people with spinal cord injuries: a systematic review. Spinal Cord 2009; 47(3): 184–195.

Garber

Gregorio

TL.

Upper extremity assistive devices: assessment of use by spinal cord-injured patients with quadriplegia. Am J Occup Ther 1990; 44(2): 126–131.

Lannin

Ada

Neurorehabilitation splinting: theory and principles of clinical use. NeuroRehabilitation 2011; 28(1): 21–28.

Curtin

Development of a tetraplegic hand assessment and splinting protocol. Paraplegia 1994; 32(3): 159–169.

Krajnik

Bridle

MJ.

Hand splinting in quadriplegia: current practice. Am J Occup Ther 1992; 46(2): 149–156.

Harvey

Principles of conservative management for a non-orthotic tenodesis grip in tetraplegics. J Hand Ther 1996; 9(3): 238–242.

10.

Frye

Geigle

PR.

Current

U.S.

splinting practices for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord Ser Cases 2020; 6(1): 49.

11.

DiPasquale-Lehnerz

Orthotic intervention for development of hand function with C-6 quadriplegia. Am J Occup Ther 1994; 48(2): 138–144.

12.

Harvey

Baillie

Ritchie

, et al. Does three months of nightly splinting reduce the extensibility of the flexor pollicis longus muscle in people with tetraplegia? Physiother Res Int 2007; 12(1): 5–13.

13.

Jung

Lee

Shin

HI.

The natural course of passive tenodesis grip in individuals with spinal cord injury with preserved wrist extension power but paralyzed fingers and thumbs. Spinal Cord 2018; 56(9): 900–906.

14.

Kalsi-Ryan

Beaton

Curt

, et al. The graded redefined assessment of strength sensibility and prehension: reliability and validity. J Neurotrauma 2012; 29(5): 905–914.

15.

Kalsi-Ryan

Beaton

Ahn

, et al. Responsiveness, sensitivity, and minimally detectable difference of the graded and redefined assessment of strength, sensibility, and prehension, version 1.0. J Neurotrauma 2016; 33(3): 307–314.

16.

Krueger

RA.

Designing and conducting focus group interviews. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota; 2002.

17.

Lewis-Beck

Bryman

Futing Liao

, eds. The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2004.

18.

Tyson

Kent

RM.

The effect of upper limb orthotics after stroke: a systematic review. NeuroRehabilitation 2011; 28(1): 29–36.

19.

Lannin

Is hand splinting effective for adults following stroke? A systematic review and methodologic critique of published research. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17(8): 807–816.

20.

Kerr

Stretching and splinting interventions for poststroke spasticity, hand function, and functional tasks: a systematic review. Am J Occup Ther 2020; 74(5): 7405205050p1–7405205050p15.

21.

Kuipers

Rassafiani

Ashburner

, et al. Do clients with acquired brain injury use the splints prescribed by occupational therapists? A descriptive study. NeuroRehabilitation 2009; 24(4): 365–375.

22.

Portnova

Mukherjee

Peters

, et al. Design of a 3D-printed, open-source wrist-driven orthosis for individuals with spinal cord injury. PLoS One 2018; 13(2): 1–18.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB