4.2 Article

Influence of Upper Extremity Positioning on Pain, Paresthesia, and Tolerance: Advancing Current Practice

期刊

JOURNAL OF BURN CARE & RESEARCH
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 E342-E350

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e3182788f52

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Loss of upper extremity motion caused by axillary burn scar contracture is a major complication of burn injury. Positioning acutely injured patients with axillary burns in positions above 90 degrees of shoulder abduction may improve shoulder motion and minimize scar contracture. However, these positions may increase injury risk to the nerves of the brachial plexus. This study evaluated the occurrence of paresthesias, pain, and positional intolerance in four shoulder abduction positions in healthy adults. Sixty men and women were placed in four randomly assigned shoulder abduction positions for up to 2 hours: 1) 90 degrees with elbow extension (90 ABD); 2) 130 degrees with elbow flexion at 110 degrees (130 ABD); 3) 150 degrees with elbow extension (150 ABD); and 4) 170 degrees with elbow extension (170 ABD). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and every 30 minutes and included the occurrence of upper extremity paresthesias, position comfort/tolerance, and pain. Transient paresthesias, lasting less than 3 minutes, occurred in all test positions in 10 to 37% of the cases. Significantly fewer subjects reported paresthesias in the 90 ABD position compared with the other positions (P < .01). Pain was reported more frequently in the 170 degrees position (68%) compared with the other positions (P < .01). Positioning with the elbow flexed or in terminal extension is not recommended, regardless of the degree of shoulder abduction. Positioning patients in a position of 150 degrees of shoulder abduction was shown to be safe and well tolerated. Consideration of positions above this range should be undertaken cautiously and only with strict monitoring in alert and oriented patients for short time periods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据