Study Design Systematic review Purpose To determine the optimal combination of motion protocol and orthotic treatment for the rehabilitation of proximal extensor tendon injuries (zones IV–VIII). Methods A systematic review of English-language randomized clinical trials and cohort studies investigating extensor tendon rehabilitation from 1960–2016 was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, PEDro, and OTseeker. Outcomes of total active motion, grip strength, return to work, patient attrition and patient reported outcomes were compared. Results Eleven studies of predominantly average quality (1 low, 8 average, 2 high) were included in the final review. Results were difficult to compare due to differences in reporting. Early total active motion and final grip strength was greater with dynamic extension orthoses (191–214°; 35–38 kg/89% contralateral side) and relative motion orthoses (205–236°; 85–95% contralateral side) compared to static orthoses (79–202°; 23–34 kg/59% contralateral side). Four studies excluded patients who did not follow-up and loss to follow-up was 12–33% in the other studies. Patient reported outcomes were not comparable, as they were only included in three studies, and each used a different assessment tool. Conclusion Average quality evidence supports the use of EAM as the superior motion protocol but optimal orthosis to deliver EAM could not be determined. Prospective research should focus on patient reported outcomes and the design of orthoses that facilitate use of the EAM.

Abstract. We designed and evaluated the accuracy and usability of a device to regulate the volume of fluid dispensed during intravenous drip therapy. The mechanical system was developed in response to a pressing need articulated by clinicians in pediatric wards throughout sub-Saharan Africa, who require a tool to prevent overhydration in children receiving intravenous fluid in settings that lack burettes or electronic infusion pumps. The device is compatible with most intravenous bags and limits the volume dispensed to a preset amount that can be adjusted in 50 mL increments. Laboratory accuracy over a range of clinically-relevant flow rates, initial bag volumes, and target volumes was within 12.0 mL of the target volume. The ease of use is "excellent," with a mean system usability score of 84.4 out of 100. Use of the device limits the volume of fluid dispensed during intravenous therapy and could potentially reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with overhydration in children receiving intravenous therapy.

No abstract

Objectives: Padded adhesive bandages are frequently used in the inpatient setting for sacral pressure injury prevention, but it is unclear whether they truly decrease interface pressure. We hypothesized such devices reduce sacral peak interface pressure in the supine position, which would be further reduced in 30-degree reclined and upright seated positions.Methods: Study participants rested with their sacrum on a pressuresensing mat, in 3 positions, for 30 seconds each: (1) sitting upright; (2) supine; and (3) supine against 30-degree wedge. Measurements were made with and without a padded adhesive bandage overlying the sacrum. Age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) were collected. These variables were entered sequentially, in an a priori order to construct a linear mixed-effects model.Results: Forty healthy adults participated. After controlling for by-subject variation, age, and sex, BMI did not influence peak sacral pressure (P = 0.22), although the effect of body position was significant (P < 0.01). Subsequent addition of padded adhesive dressing was nonsignificant (P = 0.17); sacral peak pressure was similar with a padded adhesive dressing (247.8 ± 147.3 mm Hg) or without (mean ± standard deviation = 229.8 ± 127.7 mm Hg). Lastly, there was no significant interaction between BMI and body position (P = 0.11).Conclusions: Padded adhesive bandages did not reduce interface pressure in any position. Sacral pressure was highest in the supine position and was not specifically affected by BMI. If padded bandages provide clinically significant reduction in pressure injury incidence, it is not simply through the reduction of interface pressure.