Evaluation of Outcome Measures of Zone V Flexor Tendon Injury: A Systematic Review

Background  Flexor tendon injury zone V is a multicomponent soft tissue injury involving tendons, nerves, and vessels. Outcome assessment of repair thus requires evaluation of the hand as a whole rather than solely evaluating tendon function. The purpose of this Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses -compliant systematic review was to identify and assess the components of outcome measures used in flexor zone V. Methods  A total of 3,761 studies were retrieved from four databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar). These studies were then screened for inclusion using a validated screening form. Fifteen articles fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included in the review. Subsequently, the included studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Joanna Brigg Institute tool. Results  Out of the 15 studies, 11 were case series, 3 were cross-sectional studies, and 1 was a randomized controlled trial. Out of 15 included studies, 13 were of low risk, whereas 2 studies suggested moderate risk when assessed for methodological quality using the Joanna Brigg Institute tool. Eight outcome measures were identified, out of which the most frequently used were Total Active Motion by the American Society for Surgery of Hand (TAM-ASSH) and Noaman's criteria. Our study found that Noaman's criteria assessed sensory-motor function and finger deformity in addition to the range of motion (ROM), which was found to be assessed by all the other outcome measures. Conclusion  We concluded that although Buck-Gramcko criteria is well suited for the ROM evaluation, Noaman's criteria, a recently developed outcome measure used exclusively for combined injuries in zone V, took into consideration the implications of nerve injury along with tendon function. Although being specifically designed for combined injuries of tendons, nerves, and vessels in zone V, there is a lack of usage of Noaman's in the literature. There still exists a lack of a consistent and appropriate choice of outcome measure.