Pronation versus supination maneuvers for the reduction of 'pulled elbow': a randomized clinical trial. Randomized comparison of pain perception during radial head subluxation reduction using supination-flexion or forced pronation. A comparison of supination/flexion to hyperpronation in the reduction of radial head subluxations. Radial head subluxation: comparing two methods of reduction. The efficacy of facilitated tucking for relieving procedural pain of endotracheal suctioning in very low birthweight infants. Prospective randomized controlled study comparing simple decompression versus anterior subcutaneous transposition for idiopathic neuropathy of the ulnar nerve at the elbow: Part 1. Radiofrequency microtenotomy: a promising method for treatment of recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis. A comparison of open and percutaneous techniques in the surgical treatment of tennis elbow. A randomized comparison of suturing techniques for episiotomy and laceration repair after spontaneous vaginal birth.
The purpose of this study was to compare the efficiency of the hyperpronation and supination-flexion maneuvers in the reduction of the pulled elbow.
                Sixty-six patients with pulled elbow were randomized for reduction with either hyperpronation or supination-flexion maneuvers. When the first attempt failed, a second attempt was performed with the same reduction maneuver. After failure of the second attempt the reduction maneuver was changed to the alternate method. The success rate of the reductions and the subjective rating on the difficulty of the reduction by the physician were recorded and analyzed statistically.
                Thirty-two of 34 patients (94%) in the hyperpronation group and 22 of 32 patients (69%) in the supination-flexion group were reduced at first attempt (P=0.007). Two patients in the hyperpronation group and seven patients in the supination-flexion group were reduced at the second attempt. Reduction rates were statistically similar (P=0.06). Three patients in the supination-flexion group had failed reduction at the second attempt and the reduction maneuver needed to be changed. They were successfully reduced with hyperpronation maneuver at the first attempt. Final success rate of the hyperpronation maneuver at the first attempt was statistically higher than the supination-flexion maneuver (P=0.004). Furthermore, the hyperpronation maneuver was rated significantly easier than the supination-flexion maneuver by physicians (P=0.003).
                Although final reduction rates were similar, the hyperpronation maneuver was more efficient at the first attempt, easier for physicians and less painful for the children. To determine if a difference exists in perceived pain between the forced pronation and supination-flexion methods of radial head subluxation (RHS) reduction.
                We developed a prospective randomized trial of children aged 6 months to 7 years who presented to the emergency department (ED) at Miami Children's Hospital with an immobile arm and physical findings suggestive of RHS. Children were randomized into 2 groups for RHS reduction: forced pronation and supination-flexion. Parents, physicians, and nurses were given a standard visual analog pain scale for pain assessment before, during, and at 1 minute after successful reduction.
                Seventy-five children presented to the ED with RHS; 3 children were excluded from the study because of nonadherence to the protocol and another 9 were excluded because of unsuccessful reduction during the first attempt. Of the remaining children, 32 children underwent forced pronation and 31 underwent supination-flexion. Physicians did not find a significant difference in gain scores between their perceptions of the premeasure and postmeasure of pain between those patients receiving supination-flexion and those receiving forced pronation. For nurses (P < 0.031) and parents (P < 0.043), there were statistically significant differences in gain scores. Nurses and parents perceived forced pronation as being less painful. The mean difference for parents was 1.7 cm, which exceeded the value of 1.3 cm identified as clinically significant.
                Forced pronation is perceived as less painful than the supination-flexion method by parents of children treated for RHS in our ED. To compare supination at the wrist followed by flexion at the elbow (the traditional reduction technique) to hyperpronation at the wrist in the reduction of radial head subluxations (nursemaid's elbow).
                This prospective, randomized study involved a consecutive sampling of children younger than 6 years of age who presented to one of two urban pediatric emergency departments and two suburban pediatric ambulatory care centers with a clinical diagnosis of radial head subluxation. Patients were randomized to undergo reduction by one of the two methods and were followed every 5 minutes for return of elbow function. The initial procedure was repeated if baseline functioning did not return 15 minutes after the initial reduction attempt. Failure of that technique 30 minutes after the initial reduction attempt resulted in a cross-over to the alternate method of reduction. The alternate procedure was repeated if baseline functioning did not return 15 minutes after the alternate procedure was attempted. If the patient failed both techniques, radiography of the elbow was performed.
                A total of 90 patients were enrolled in the study. Five patients were removed from further analysis secondary to a final diagnosis of fracture, 84 were reduced successfully, and 1 failed both techniques. Demographic characteristics of each group were similar. Thirty-nine of 41 patients (95%) randomized to hyper-pronation were reduced successfully on the first attempt versus 34 of 44 patients (77%) randomized to supination. Two patients in the hyperpronation group required two attempts versus 10 patients in the supination group. Hyperpronation was more successful; 40 of 41 patients (97.5%) in the hyperpronation group were reduced successfully versus 38 of 44 patients (86%) in the supination group. Of the 6 patients who crossed over from supination to hyperpronation, 5 were reduced on the first attempt and 1 was reduced on the second attempt.
                In the reduction of radial head subluxations, the hyperpronation technique required fewer attempts at reduction compared with supination, was successful more often than supination, and was often successful when supination failed. To determine whether reduction of radial head subluxation (RHS) is more successful using pronation and flexion (PF) vs the more widely used supination and flexion (SF) method.
                Prospective study in a tertiary care children's hospital ED from August 1996 through December 1997. Inclusion criteria included age <7 years with an upper-extremity injury. Exclusion criteria included neurologic impairment, congenital malformation, or obvious bony deformity or edema. Patients were randomized to receive either PF or SF. Reduction was considered successful if the child used the injured arm. Both the physician and the parent rated the child's pain during the procedure using a descriptive ordinal scale, from 0 (no pain) to 3 (severe pain).
                148 patients were enrolled; 13 were excluded. Success was achieved on the first attempt in 53/67 (80%, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.88) of patients receiving PF and in 47/68 (69%, 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.80) of those receiving SF (p = 0.186). For those injuring the left arm, 29/41 (71%, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.84) were successfully reduced using SF, while 33/37 (89%, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.97) were successfully reduced using PF (p = 0.044). Physicians perceived PF to be less painful than SF (p = 0.013). There was no significant pain score difference rated by parents.
                Both PF and SF can be used with success to reduce RHS. For left arm injuries, PF should be attempted first, since it may decrease the need for further treatment. PF may be less painful, particularly for first reduction attempts. This study compared the efficacy of a behavioral pain reducing intervention (facilitated tucking) with standard neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) care for decreasing procedural pain (endotracheal suctioning) in very low birthweight (VLBW) infants.
                A prospective randomized crossover design with infants as their own controls were used. The sample consisted of 40 VLBW infants, 23-32 weeks gestation, and weighing 560-1498 g with tracheal intubation. The infants were observed twice during each endotracheal suctioning experience; one suctioning was done according to normal nursery routine; another was done using facilitated tucking (the caregiver "hand-swaddling" the infant by placing a hand on the infant's head and feet while providing flexion and containment). The Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) measured the infant's pain response, and severity of illness of each infant was measured by the Score for Neonatal Acute Physiology (SNAP) and the NTISS (Neonatal Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System). Repeated measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA) determined the efficacy of facilitated tucking for reducing procedural pain (PIPP) and the effects of order of intervention vs. control. Regression analyses examined the relationship of gestational age, severity of illness, and number of painful procedures to the pain response.
                There was a significant difference between the PIPP scores for tucking and nontucking positions (p = 0.001) and a nonsignificant interaction with order (p = 0.64) as well as a nonsignificant main effect for order (p = 0.46). In the regression analyses, all predictors taken together did not significantly predict PIPP scores in the tucked position (p = 0.11) or nontucked position (p = 0.57).
                Facilitated tucking is a developmentally sensitive, nonpharmacological comfort measure that can relieve procedural pain in VLBW infants. Nurses need to be increasingly aware of infant pain during daily care taking, and to use validated pain assessment instruments. Further clinical research on individual pain assessment is needed for better understanding of the quality and significance of pain for each infant, and the factors that affect pain expression. The main objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of participants treated by simple decompression (SD) of the ulnar nerve versus anterior subcutaneous transposition (AST).
                A prospective randomized controlled study was performed. Three hundred forty participants were referred to our institution between March 1999 and July 2002. One hundred fifty-two patients met the inclusion criteria and were randomized into two surgical groups: 75 were assigned to SD, and 77 were assigned to AST. Participants were followed for 1 year after surgery. The main outcome measure was clinical outcome 1 year after surgery.
                An excellent or good result was obtained in 49 of 75 participants who underwent SD and in 54 of 77 participants undergoing AST. The difference was not statistically significant. However, the complication rate was statistically lower in the SD group (9.6%) compared with the AST group (31.1%) (risk ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.69). Duration of symptoms, (sub)luxation of the ulnar nerve, and severity of the complaints did not influence outcome.
                Surgery for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow is effective. The outcomes of SD and AST are equivalent, except for the complication rate. Because the intervention is simpler and associated with fewer complications, SD is advised, even in the presence of (sub)luxation. Recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis (elbow tendinosis) is a common cause of elbow pain. There are many forms of treatment, none being superior.
                The main hypothesis tested in this study is that radiofrequency microtenotomy offers better results than the extensor tendon release and repair operation for elbow tendinosis, especially earlier recovery.
                Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
                Twenty-four patients were randomized into 2 treatment groups, extensor tendon release and repair, and microtenotomy. Dynamic infrared thermography (DIRT) was employed as an objective method to verify the diagnosis as well as to document the outcome 3 months after the surgical procedure.
                Visual analog scale pain scores in the microtenotomy but not in the release group decreased significantly after 3 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference in pain scores between the 2 groups at 3, 6, and 12 weeks, and at 10 to 18 months. At 12 weeks, grip strength had improved significantly in the microtenotomy but not in the release group. The functional score was significantly increased in both groups. The DIRT group showed significant differences in epicondyle skin temperature between diseased and normal elbows both pre- and postoperatively. Abnormal DIRT images correlated well with elevated pain scores.
                Radiofrequency microtenotomy provides a promising alternative to the release operation for elbow tendinosis. Dynamic infrared thermography provides a reliable, noninvasive, objective method for the diagnosis of elbow tendinosis, as well as for evaluation of the outcome following treatment. We conducted a prospective, randomised, controlled trial of 45 patients (47 elbows), with tennis elbow, who underwent either a formal open release or a percutaneous tenotomy. All patients had pre- and post-operative assessment using the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scoring system. Both groups were followed up for a minimum of 12 months. Statistical analyses using the Mann-Whitney U test and repeated measured ANOVA showed significant improvements for patient satisfaction (p = 0.012), time to return to work (p = 0.0001), improvements in DASH score (p = 0.001) and improvement in sporting activities (p = 0.046) in the percutaneous group. Those patients undergoing a percutaneous release returned to work on average three weeks earlier and improved significantly more quickly than those undergoing an open procedure. The percutaneous procedure is a quicker and simpler procedure to undertake and produces significantly better results. To compare the continuous knotless technique of perineal repair with the interrupted method after spontaneous vaginal birth
                A randomized controlled trial.
                Canadian Task Force Classification I.
                This study was undertaken in a university hospital with more than 2200 deliveries per year. The static population of this district includes a wide range of socioeconomic classes and is predominately white.
                From May 1 to November 19, 2003, 214 primiparous women with a second-degree perineal tear or episiotomy were randomly allocated to either the continuous knotless technique (CKT; n=107) or the interrupted technique (IT; n=107) suturing method.
                The interrupted technique (IT) involves placing 3 layers of sutures whereas the continuous knotless technique (CKT) involves reapproximating vaginal trauma, perineal muscles, and skin with a loose, continuous, nonlocking technique.
                The primary outcomes of the study were perineal pain (evaluated by visual analogue scale) at 48 hours and day 10 and dyspareunia 3 months after delivery. Secondary outcomes included suture removal, wound dehiscence, analgesia use up to 48 hours, and satisfaction with repair established at 3 and 12 months after childbirth. At day 10, 19 women had dropped out of the study. Significantly fewer women reported pain at 10 days with the CKT than with the IT (32.3% vs 60.4%; p<.001). Analgesia use up to 48 hours postpartum was less in the CKT group than in the IT group (33.6% vs 54.2%; p<.05). No difference was found in superficial dyspareunia at 3 months for the CKT versus the IT group.
                The use of a continuous knotless technique for perineal repair is associated with less short-term pain than techniques with interrupted sutures.
There is limited evidence from four small low-quality trials that the pronation method might be more effective and less painful than the supination method for manipulating pulled elbow in young children. We recommend that a high quality randomised trial be performed to strengthen the evidence.