Aquatic Therapy versus Standard Rehabilitation after Surgical Rotator Cuff Repair: A Randomized Prospective Study

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Rotator cuff lesion is a common shoulder condition that can cause significant pain and functional impairment. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is often performed when conservative treatment has failed, but there is no consensus established for optimal postoperative rehabilitation. In this prospective randomized control study (86 patients), we compared the standard land-based rehabilitation to aquatic therapy but found no significant differences in terms of range of motion, function, and pain at 1.5, 3, 6, and 24 postoperative months. Likewise, both groups were comparable in terms of postoperative tendon healing, complications, workstop duration, and patient satisfaction. Thus, the systematic use of immediate aquatic therapy after surgery does not seem necessary, though further studies can be performed to specifically identify the type of patients who could greatly benefit from it. ABSTRACT: Introduction: Post-operative rehabilitation following rotator cuff tear repair (RCR) is important to promote tendon healing, restore strength, and recover normal function. Aquatic therapy in hot water allows body relaxation, which promotes patient conditioning for efficient rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to assess whether aquatic therapy is more efficient than standard (land-based) rehabilitation in terms of range of motion (ROM), function, and pain after arthroscopic RCR. Methods: We prospectively randomized 86 patients scheduled for arthroscopic RCR to either aquatic therapy (n = 44) or standard rehabilitation (n = 42) using block sizes of four or six. Patients were evaluated clinically at 1.5, 3, 6, and 24 months and using ultrasound (US) at 6 months. Two-way mixed ANOVA tests were performed to evaluate the effects of rehabilitation type (between-subjects factor) on ROM and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) over time (within-subjects factor). Post-hoc inter-group comparisons at each time point were also conducted using Wilcoxon rank sum tests or unpaired Student t-tests and adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Results: The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of demographic data or pre-operative characteristics, except for the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, which was lower in the aquatic therapy group (37.9 ± 23.6 vs. 55.6 ± 24.9, p = 0.019). The mixed model revealed the absence of interaction effect between the type of rehabilitation and time on PROMs and ROM except on the SANE score (p < 0.001), which was biased by the existing pre-operative difference mentioned above. Furthermore, none of the post-operative outcomes were statistically different between the two groups at 1.5, 3, 6, and 24 months. In addition, no significant difference could be noted regarding tendon healing rate (p = 0.443), complication (p = 0.349), workstop duration (0.585), or patient satisfaction (p = 0.663). Conclusion: Compared to the standard rehabilitation, the aquatic therapy did not yield superior clinical and functional outcomes after arthroscopic RCR when started immediately after the surgery.