Cargando…

Sling Versus Abduction Brace Shoulder Immobilization After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The optimal immobilization position of the shoulder after rotator cuff repair is controversial. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes and incidence of retears after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair between patients who used an abduction brace versus a sling for postoperative shoulder...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gao, Jing-Hui, Zhou, Jing-Yi, Li, Hong, Li, Hong-Yun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10395168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37538535
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671231185368
_version_ 1785083533982695424
author Gao, Jing-Hui
Zhou, Jing-Yi
Li, Hong
Li, Hong-Yun
author_facet Gao, Jing-Hui
Zhou, Jing-Yi
Li, Hong
Li, Hong-Yun
author_sort Gao, Jing-Hui
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The optimal immobilization position of the shoulder after rotator cuff repair is controversial. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes and incidence of retears after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair between patients who used an abduction brace versus a sling for postoperative shoulder immobilization. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abduction brace and sling immobilization after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using single-row, double-row, or suture-bridge fixation. Clinical scores, pain severity, and retear rates were compared between patients with abduction brace versus sling immobilization. RESULTS: Of 1572 retrieved studies, 4 RCTs with a total of 224 patients (112 patients with abduction brace and 112 patients with sling) were included in the qualitative analysis, and 3 of the RCTs were included in the quantitative analysis (meta-analysis). There were no significant differences between the abduction brace and sling immobilization groups in the Constant-Murley score at 3 months (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.26 [95% CI, –1.30 to 1.83]; P = .74; I (2) = 84%), 6 months (WMD, 1.91 [95% CI, –0.17 to 4.00]; P = .07; I (2) = 85%), and 12 months (WMD, 0.55 [95% CI, –1.37 to 2.47]; P = .57; I (2) = 0%); the visual analog scale score for pain at 1 week (WMD, 0.10 [95% CI, –0.20 to 0.41]; P = .51; I (2) = 0%), 3 weeks (WMD, –0.12 [95% CI, –0.34 to 1.00]; P = .29; I (2) = 0%), 6 weeks (WMD, –0.12 [95% CI, –0.30 to 0.06]; P = .20; I (2) = 0%), and 12 weeks (WMD, –0.13 [95% CI, –0.27 to 0.02]; P = .09; I (2) = 18%); or the retear rate at 3 months (risk ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.09 to 4.23]; P = .64; Z = 0.47%) postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review demonstrated a lack of significant differences between the abduction brace and sling immobilization groups regarding postoperative clinical scores, pain severity, and tendon healing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10395168
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103951682023-08-03 Sling Versus Abduction Brace Shoulder Immobilization After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Gao, Jing-Hui Zhou, Jing-Yi Li, Hong Li, Hong-Yun Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: The optimal immobilization position of the shoulder after rotator cuff repair is controversial. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes and incidence of retears after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair between patients who used an abduction brace versus a sling for postoperative shoulder immobilization. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abduction brace and sling immobilization after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using single-row, double-row, or suture-bridge fixation. Clinical scores, pain severity, and retear rates were compared between patients with abduction brace versus sling immobilization. RESULTS: Of 1572 retrieved studies, 4 RCTs with a total of 224 patients (112 patients with abduction brace and 112 patients with sling) were included in the qualitative analysis, and 3 of the RCTs were included in the quantitative analysis (meta-analysis). There were no significant differences between the abduction brace and sling immobilization groups in the Constant-Murley score at 3 months (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.26 [95% CI, –1.30 to 1.83]; P = .74; I (2) = 84%), 6 months (WMD, 1.91 [95% CI, –0.17 to 4.00]; P = .07; I (2) = 85%), and 12 months (WMD, 0.55 [95% CI, –1.37 to 2.47]; P = .57; I (2) = 0%); the visual analog scale score for pain at 1 week (WMD, 0.10 [95% CI, –0.20 to 0.41]; P = .51; I (2) = 0%), 3 weeks (WMD, –0.12 [95% CI, –0.34 to 1.00]; P = .29; I (2) = 0%), 6 weeks (WMD, –0.12 [95% CI, –0.30 to 0.06]; P = .20; I (2) = 0%), and 12 weeks (WMD, –0.13 [95% CI, –0.27 to 0.02]; P = .09; I (2) = 18%); or the retear rate at 3 months (risk ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.09 to 4.23]; P = .64; Z = 0.47%) postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review demonstrated a lack of significant differences between the abduction brace and sling immobilization groups regarding postoperative clinical scores, pain severity, and tendon healing. SAGE Publications 2023-08-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10395168/ /pubmed/37538535 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671231185368 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
Gao, Jing-Hui
Zhou, Jing-Yi
Li, Hong
Li, Hong-Yun
Sling Versus Abduction Brace Shoulder Immobilization After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title Sling Versus Abduction Brace Shoulder Immobilization After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full Sling Versus Abduction Brace Shoulder Immobilization After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_fullStr Sling Versus Abduction Brace Shoulder Immobilization After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Sling Versus Abduction Brace Shoulder Immobilization After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_short Sling Versus Abduction Brace Shoulder Immobilization After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_sort sling versus abduction brace shoulder immobilization after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10395168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37538535
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671231185368
work_keys_str_mv AT gaojinghui slingversusabductionbraceshoulderimmobilizationafterarthroscopicrotatorcuffrepairasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhoujingyi slingversusabductionbraceshoulderimmobilizationafterarthroscopicrotatorcuffrepairasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lihong slingversusabductionbraceshoulderimmobilizationafterarthroscopicrotatorcuffrepairasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lihongyun slingversusabductionbraceshoulderimmobilizationafterarthroscopicrotatorcuffrepairasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis