| Literature DB >> 32685524 |
Junho Park1, Chang-Hun Lee2, Youngjin Choi1, Il-Han Joo2, Kwang-Hyun Lee3, Sung Jae Kim3.
Abstract
Our purpose was to compare the contributions of these two systems to assess PIP joint extension in fresh cadaver models. Nine middle fingers of fresh cadavers were used. The PIP joint angle was measured while an extension load was applied on the extensor tendons. Specimens on which extension load was applied on the extrinsic extensors were classified as the extrinsic group, and those on which extension load was applied on the intrinsic extensors were classified as the intrinsic group. Linear regression analyses were performed to obtain regression equation and the extension load-PIP joint angle curve. The mean of slope of the curve was compared between the two groups using paired t-test. The same experiments were done for the metacarpophalangeal (MP) joint in 0° and 60° flexion to evaluate the effect of MP joint flexion on PIP joint extension. The mean slope of the extension load-PIP joint angle curve of the extrinsic group was significantly greater than that of the intrinsic group. With the MP joint in 0° flexion, the mean slope of the extrinsic and intrinsic groups was -0.148 and -0.117, respectively (greater absolute value means greater slope, p = 0.01). With the MP joint in 60° flexion, the mean slopes were -0.147 and -0.104, respectively (p = 0.015). The contribution of the intrinsic extensor for PIP joint extension shows decreasing trends with MP joint flexion. The extrinsic extensors have greater contribution for PIP joint extension compared with the intrinsic extensors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32685524 PMCID: PMC7327553 DOI: 10.1155/2020/7585976
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the extensor mechanism of the finger.
Figure 2Each finger unit was mounted on a custom-made apparatus.
Figure 3Experiment with metacarpophalangeal (MP) joint with 0 degree (a). The MP joint angle can be changed freely while the structures distal to the MP joint are keeping their position (b). FDS: flexor digitorum superficialis; MC: metacarpal; P1: proximal phalanx; P2: middle phalanx.
Figure 4Extension load-proximal interphalangeal joint angle curve of finger specimen #1. The same experiments were done for all nine cadaveric finger models.
Slope of the extension force-PIP joint angle curve with metacarpophalangeal joint flexion of 0 degree.
| Fingers | Extrinsic group | Intrinsic group |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | -0.119 | -0.077 | |
| #2 | -0.130 | -0.109 | |
| #3 | -0.143 | -0.117 | |
| #4 | -0.117 | -0.074 | |
| #5 | -0.204 | -0.189 | |
| #6 | -0.201 | -0.131 | |
| #7 | -0.124 | -0.122 | |
| #8 | -0.145 | -0.119 | |
| #9 | -0.151 | -0.115 | |
|
| |||
| Slope mean | -0.148 (SD, 0.03) | -0.117 (SD, 0.03) | <0.001 |
PIP: proximal interphalangeal joint; SD: standard deviation.
Slope of the extension force-PIP joint angle curve with metacarpophalangeal joint flexion of 60 degrees.
| Fingers | Extrinsic group | Intrinsic group |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | -0.095 | -0.078 | |
| #2 | -0.091 | -0.079 | |
| #3 | -0.150 | -0.068 | |
| #4 | -0.108 | -0.071 | |
| #5 | -0.252 | -0.158 | |
| #6 | -0.185 | -0.145 | |
| #7 | -0.146 | -0.131 | |
| #8 | -0.145 | -0.102 | |
| #9 | -0.149 | -0.106 | |
|
| |||
| Slope mean | -0.147 (SD, 0.05) | -0.104 (SD, 0.03) | 0.002 |
PIP: proximal interphalangeal joint; SD: standard deviation.
Comparison between different metacarpophalangeal (MP) joint angles.
| Slope mean of the extrinsic group with MP joint of 0 degree | -0.148 |
| Slope mean of the extrinsic group with MP joint of 60 degrees | -0.147 |
| | 0.870 |
|
| |
| Slope mean of the intrinsic group with MP joint of 0 degree | -0.117 |
| Slope mean of the intrinsic group with MP joint of 60 degrees | -0.104 |
| | 0.102 |