Table 3.
Functional Outcome – Range of Motion (Subjective) (n=8)
| Article | Acute / Reconstruction (n=number of patients) | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Cedidi et al., 2002 | Acute (n=1) | Functional ROM was complete and “excellent” |
| Verolino et al., 2008 | Acute (n=1) | Normal mobility with right hand, good thumb opposition |
| Active ROM was normal 2 years post-op | ||
| Active flexion of the IP joints was limited (5–15°) | ||
| Passive motion quasi normal in flexion and extension for all IP and MP joints | ||
| Pontini et al., 2015 | Acute (n=1) | Satisfactory oral ROM at 12 months |
| Frame et al., 2004 | Reconstruction (n=89) | Post-treatment ROM (rated by physicians): |
| Excellent (46%, 59 sites) | ||
| Good (29%, 37 sites) | ||
| Average (9%, 11 sites) | ||
| Below average (16%, 20 sites) | ||
| Post-treatment ROM (rated by patients): | ||
| 86% satisfied | ||
| Popescu et al., 2007 | Reconstruction (n=1) | Extension of neck was significantly improved |
| Mouth opening was almost normal | ||
| Lynch et al., 2008 | Reconstruction (n=1) | Contracture release improved the patient’s neck ROM |
| Park et al., 2009 | Reconstruction (n=3) | Significant improvement in shoulder abduction and extension |
| Improved ROM | ||
| Good ROM at ankle | ||
| Cuadra et al., 2012 | Acute (n=7), Reconstruction (n=7) |
Range of articular motion was complete in 15/17 cases (88%) |
| Moderate motility limitation in both active and passive movements of 5th digit; n=1 | ||
| Limited flexion of fingers; n=1 |