Comparative Analysis of Rehabilitation Outcomes: Custom-Made Versus Prefabricated Orthotic Devices in Patients with Wrist Injuries

Authors: Mishal A. Almuhameed, Taleb A. Alessa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13253518

Short DOI: https://doi.org/gt577c

Country: Saudi Arabia

Full-text Research PDF File:   View   |   Download

Abstract: Background: Orthotic devices play a crucial role in the rehabilitation of wrist injuries, with custom-made and prefabricated options being commonly used. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of custom-made versus prefabricated orthotic devices in improving rehabilitation outcomes for patients with wrist injuries.

Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 115 participants, divided into custom-made orthotic and prefabricated orthotic groups. Key outcome measures included functional improvement, pain levels, grip strength, range of motion, patient satisfaction, and compliance rates.

Results: Custom-made orthotic devices demonstrated superior outcomes compared to prefabricated devices in functional improvement, pain reduction, grip strength, range of motion, patient satisfaction, and compliance rates. Custom-made orthoses were associated with greater comfort, personalized fit, and overall patient satisfaction.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that custom-made orthotic devices offer greater benefits in rehabilitation outcomes for patients with wrist injuries compared to prefabricated options. Personalization and customization play a significant role in enhancing patient comfort, function, and satisfaction during the rehabilitation process.

Keywords: orthotic devices, wrist injuries, rehabilitation outcomes, custom-made, prefabricated, randomized controlled trial.

Paper Id: 230895

Published On: 2016-05-11

Published In: Volume 4, Issue 3, May-June 2016

Cite This: Comparative Analysis of Rehabilitation Outcomes: Custom-Made Versus Prefabricated Orthotic Devices in Patients with Wrist Injuries - Mishal A. Almuhameed, Taleb A. Alessa - IJIRMPS Volume 4, Issue 3, May-June 2016. DOI 10.5281/zenodo.13253518

Share this