Cargando…

A Review of Online Rehabilitation Protocols Designated for Rotator Cuff Repairs

PURPOSE: To compare publicly available rehabilitation protocols designated for rotator cuff (RTC) repairs published online by academic residency programs and private practice institutions. METHODS: A systematic electronic search using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Acce...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Coda, Reed G., Cheema, Sana G., Hermanns, Christina A., Tarakemeh, Armin, Vopat, Matthew L., Kramer, Meghan, Schroeppel, John Paul, Mullen, Scott, Vopat, Bryan G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7283951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32548593
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2020.03.006
_version_ 1783544365763788800
author Coda, Reed G.
Cheema, Sana G.
Hermanns, Christina A.
Tarakemeh, Armin
Vopat, Matthew L.
Kramer, Meghan
Schroeppel, John Paul
Mullen, Scott
Vopat, Bryan G.
author_facet Coda, Reed G.
Cheema, Sana G.
Hermanns, Christina A.
Tarakemeh, Armin
Vopat, Matthew L.
Kramer, Meghan
Schroeppel, John Paul
Mullen, Scott
Vopat, Bryan G.
author_sort Coda, Reed G.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare publicly available rehabilitation protocols designated for rotator cuff (RTC) repairs published online by academic residency programs and private practice institutions. METHODS: A systematic electronic search using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System (FREIDA) was performed for RTC repair rehabilitation protocols. Private practice programs with published rehabilitation protocols that were discovered during the Google search were also included for review, but no comprehensive search for private practice protocols was performed. The main exclusion criteria consisted of non–English-language protocols and protocols without any of the time-based components in question. Included protocols were assessed independently based on the specified RTC tear size (small [≤1 cm], medium [1-4 cm], large or massive [≥5 cm], or no mention of size). Protocols were compared based on the inclusion, exclusion, and timing of certain rehabilitation components. RESULTS: A total of 96 rehabilitation protocols were included for review, from 39 academic institutions and 28 private practice programs. Specific instructions for concomitant biceps tenodesis were included in 26 protocols (27.1%). Of the 96 protocols, 88 (91.7%) did not place restrictions on early postoperative passive range of motion (PROM) of the shoulder. Isolated PROM with restrictions on active range of motion was most commonly recommended for the first 4 or 6 weeks postoperatively (80.2%). Use of a sling or immobilizer was most frequently recommended for the first 4 or 6 weeks postoperatively (78.1%). Wide variation was noted in recommendations for returning to resistance strengthening, with the highest incidence being 27 protocols recommending returning at 12 weeks (28.1%); this further varied based on the size of the tear. A total of 21 protocols (21.9%) recommended the use of cryotherapy postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Although certain rehabilitation components were common, such as duration of PROM and sling or immobilizer use, a large degree of variation remains among published rehabilitation protocols after RTC repair, and this variability is still seen even when subdividing by the size or severity of the RTC tear. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Rehabilitation after RTC repair is crucial to patient outcomes. This study summarizes the variability among online rehabilitation protocols for RTC repair in the United States and emphasizes the importance of appropriate rehabilitation after RTC surgery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7283951
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72839512020-06-15 A Review of Online Rehabilitation Protocols Designated for Rotator Cuff Repairs Coda, Reed G. Cheema, Sana G. Hermanns, Christina A. Tarakemeh, Armin Vopat, Matthew L. Kramer, Meghan Schroeppel, John Paul Mullen, Scott Vopat, Bryan G. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Systematic Review PURPOSE: To compare publicly available rehabilitation protocols designated for rotator cuff (RTC) repairs published online by academic residency programs and private practice institutions. METHODS: A systematic electronic search using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System (FREIDA) was performed for RTC repair rehabilitation protocols. Private practice programs with published rehabilitation protocols that were discovered during the Google search were also included for review, but no comprehensive search for private practice protocols was performed. The main exclusion criteria consisted of non–English-language protocols and protocols without any of the time-based components in question. Included protocols were assessed independently based on the specified RTC tear size (small [≤1 cm], medium [1-4 cm], large or massive [≥5 cm], or no mention of size). Protocols were compared based on the inclusion, exclusion, and timing of certain rehabilitation components. RESULTS: A total of 96 rehabilitation protocols were included for review, from 39 academic institutions and 28 private practice programs. Specific instructions for concomitant biceps tenodesis were included in 26 protocols (27.1%). Of the 96 protocols, 88 (91.7%) did not place restrictions on early postoperative passive range of motion (PROM) of the shoulder. Isolated PROM with restrictions on active range of motion was most commonly recommended for the first 4 or 6 weeks postoperatively (80.2%). Use of a sling or immobilizer was most frequently recommended for the first 4 or 6 weeks postoperatively (78.1%). Wide variation was noted in recommendations for returning to resistance strengthening, with the highest incidence being 27 protocols recommending returning at 12 weeks (28.1%); this further varied based on the size of the tear. A total of 21 protocols (21.9%) recommended the use of cryotherapy postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Although certain rehabilitation components were common, such as duration of PROM and sling or immobilizer use, a large degree of variation remains among published rehabilitation protocols after RTC repair, and this variability is still seen even when subdividing by the size or severity of the RTC tear. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Rehabilitation after RTC repair is crucial to patient outcomes. This study summarizes the variability among online rehabilitation protocols for RTC repair in the United States and emphasizes the importance of appropriate rehabilitation after RTC surgery. Elsevier 2020-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7283951/ /pubmed/32548593 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2020.03.006 Text en © 2020 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Coda, Reed G.
Cheema, Sana G.
Hermanns, Christina A.
Tarakemeh, Armin
Vopat, Matthew L.
Kramer, Meghan
Schroeppel, John Paul
Mullen, Scott
Vopat, Bryan G.
A Review of Online Rehabilitation Protocols Designated for Rotator Cuff Repairs
title A Review of Online Rehabilitation Protocols Designated for Rotator Cuff Repairs
title_full A Review of Online Rehabilitation Protocols Designated for Rotator Cuff Repairs
title_fullStr A Review of Online Rehabilitation Protocols Designated for Rotator Cuff Repairs
title_full_unstemmed A Review of Online Rehabilitation Protocols Designated for Rotator Cuff Repairs
title_short A Review of Online Rehabilitation Protocols Designated for Rotator Cuff Repairs
title_sort review of online rehabilitation protocols designated for rotator cuff repairs
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7283951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32548593
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2020.03.006
work_keys_str_mv AT codareedg areviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT cheemasanag areviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT hermannschristinaa areviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT tarakemeharmin areviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT vopatmatthewl areviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT kramermeghan areviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT schroeppeljohnpaul areviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT mullenscott areviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT vopatbryang areviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT codareedg reviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT cheemasanag reviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT hermannschristinaa reviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT tarakemeharmin reviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT vopatmatthewl reviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT kramermeghan reviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT schroeppeljohnpaul reviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT mullenscott reviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs
AT vopatbryang reviewofonlinerehabilitationprotocolsdesignatedforrotatorcuffrepairs