A COMPARISON OF THE FUTURE WRIST ORTHOSIS WITH A SYNTHETIC THERMOLYN ORTHOSIS - UTILITY AND CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS

Citation
Gj. Tijhuis et al., A COMPARISON OF THE FUTURE WRIST ORTHOSIS WITH A SYNTHETIC THERMOLYN ORTHOSIS - UTILITY AND CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS, Arthritis care and research, 11(3), 1998, pp. 217-222
Citations number
13
Categorie Soggetti
Rheumatology,Rehabilitation
Journal title
ISSN journal
08937524
Volume
11
Issue
3
Year of publication
1998
Pages
217 - 222
Database
ISI
SICI code
0893-7524(1998)11:3<217:ACOTFW>2.0.ZU;2-9
Abstract
Objective. To compare the short-term utility and clinical effectivenes s of the commercial-made Future wrist orthosis with a newly developed, custom-made ThermoLyn wrist orthosis. Methods. Using a randomized cro ss-over trial, 10 patients with rheumatoid arthritis used each of the two orthoses for two weeks. Outcome measures were patients' judgments with respect to different statements about utility and clinical assess ments including pain and swelling of the wrist and finger joints, rang e of motion of the wrist, and grip strength. At the end of the study t he patients were asked which of the two orthoses they preferred and wh y. Results. Patients fended to favor the Future wrist orthosis with re spect to pain relief and to handling the orthosis. The visual analog s cale score of the appearance of the ThermoLyn wrist orthosis was a lit tle higher than that of the Future wrist orthosis, but the difference was not statistically significant. Clinical parameters such as pain in the wrist, swelling of the wrist and finger joints, and movements of the wrist showed that the Future orthosis tended to be more effective than the ThermoLyn orthosis. None of the differences reached statistic al significance, At the end of the study, 5 patients preferred the Fut ure and 5 patients the ThermoLyn wrist orthosis. Arguments in favor of the ThermoLyn orthosis were better hygiene, stability, and no need to remove the orthosis during dirty and wet conditions. Arguments in fav or of the Future orthosis were greater suppleness and freedom of movem ent. Conclusions. The ready-made fabric Futuro wrist orthosis appears to be as good as the more expensive individually made synthetic Thermo Lyn wrist orthosis with respect to short-term utility and clinical eff ectiveness. The conditions under which the orthosis will be worn will help to decide which orthosis is the best for the patient. In the even t that the patient wants to use the orthosis in wet and dirty conditio ns, the ThermoLyn wrist orthosis is a good alternative to the Future w rist orthosis.