T2 Safety of Early Post-operative Range of Motion in Burn Patients with Newly Placed Hand Autografts

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Patients who suffer hand burns are at a high risk for developing contractures, partly due to the presence of numerous cutaneous functional units, or contracture risk areas, located within the hand. Patients who undergo split-thickness skin grafting (STSG) are often immobilized post-operatively for graft protection. Restricting mobility following a STSG is thought to protect against subdermal edema and shear forces, despite limited evidence. Early range of motion (EROM) has been described previously. Recent practice at our burn center includes EROM following hand STSG to limit unnecessary immobilization. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine if EROM is safe to perform after hand STSG and if there is any clinical benefit. Methods In an approved, retrospective, matched case-control study of adult patients who sustained hand burns, patients who received EROM were defined as cases; patients who did not receive EROM were considered controls and received the standard 3–5 days of post-operative immobilization in a resting hand splint. Adult patients admitted over a 3-year period were eligible for inclusion. Patients were evaluated for graft loss and range of motion. Results Seventy-two patients were included in this study; 37 EROM patients and 35 matched controls. EROM patients tended to have a larger area excised (170.4 ± 69.8cm2 vs. 132.9 ± 76.2cm2; p=0.034) and grafted (171 ± 70.8 cm2 vs. 132.9 ± 76.2 cm2; p=0.033). Most patients were male, with an average age of 39 years. Patients had an average of approximately 5% TBSA burns with 1.5% to the hands. On post-op day (POD) 1 and 2, patients received EROM for an average of 30 minutes (29.25 ± 14.9 vs. 31 ± 16.4 minutes). Six patients experienced minor graft loss. Three patients (8%) experienced graft loss not attributable to EROM. One patient (2.7%) experienced graft loss pre-EROM on POD2 and 3 patients (8%) experienced graft loss post-EROM on either POD1 or POD2. All graft loss was less than 1 cm in greatest dimension and no patient who experienced graft loss required additional surgery as they all closed by their first outpatient follow-up. Significantly more patients who received EROM achieved full digital flexion by the first outpatient visit (25/27=92.6% vs. 15/22=68.2%; p=0.028). Conclusions Performing EROM does not cause an increase in graft loss. All areas of graft loss from the EROM group healed without intervention. There appears to be a benefit to EROM since there was a significant improvement in the patients’ ability to make a full fist at initial outpatient follow up. Further prospective analysis is needed to examine the true clinical utility of EROM in the hand and other contracture-prone areas. Applicability of Research to Practice Clinical change in post-operative management after hand grafting.