Background: Non-operative management of the elbow, shoulder, and knee typically includes braces, such as the: static progressive stretch (SPS), turnbuckle, and dynamic. However, a paucity of literature exists comparing these three bracing modalities. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the current literature on the various bracing modalities for physicians and patients managing elbow, shoulder, or knee joint complications. Specifically, we compared the use of 1) static progressive stretch, 2) dynamic, and 3) turnbuckle braces for the a) elbow, b) knee, and c) shoulder.
Materials and methods: A PubMed search on dynamic, SPS, and turnbuckle bracing for the elbow, knee, and shoulder joints was performed. Studies that addressed clinical outcomes and relied primarily on the brace for improvement of patient outcomes and not on surgery were included. Because individually-fabricated braces are extremely costly, require great fabrication skill, and are unique to the patient they were specifically designed for, their results are not generalizable to the greater patient population and were, therefore, not included in this analysis. A total of 14 elbow, 24 knee, and 4 shoulder studies met criteria.
Results: Elbow-Patients wore the SPS brace for 90 minutes, compared to 8 hours for the turnbuckle and 20 hours for the dynamic brace. The SPS and turnbuckle brace had similar increases in range of motion (ROM) of 37°. The SPS brace was found to provide patients with the greatest reduction in flexion contracture, 26°. There are similar increases in flexion ROM between the SPS and dynamic elbow bracing modalities. Shoulder- The mean duration of use for an SPS was only six weeks compared to the two months required for the dynamic shoulder brace. The dynamic shoulder brace protocol involved upwards of 24 hours per day or night as patients were instructed to wear the brace at all times. Patients treated with both the SPS and dynamic braces had excellent pain outcomes. Knee-The most commonly followed SPS knee brace protocol was one to three sessions per day which lasted from seven to nine weeks, while for the dynamic brace the time period ranged from six to eight weeks. The SPS brace reported a mean increase in ROM of 31°. There was a lack of evidence for the dynamic and turnbuckle knee braces for their accurate assessment. The SPS studies reported the greatest response to flexion improvement with a mean increase of flexion by 22°. Meanwhile, the reported mean flexion increase with a dynamic knee brace was only 7°.
Conclusion: Based on the most current literature available, the authors highly recommend the use of SPS for the elbow, shoulder, and knee. Static progressive stretch bracing has an easy patient protocol, a short duration of use, and excellent outcomes. Additionally, the lack of evidence for turnbuckle and dynamic braces is concerning. Overall, the static progressive stretch brace has shown excellent results in the outcomes assessed in this review and should be a first recommendation for patients suffering from elbow, knee, and/or shoulder pathology.