Early Versus Delayed Passive Range of Motion After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: Postoperative rehabilitation has been shown to affect healing of the rotator cuff after surgical repair. However, it is unknown whether an early or delayed rehabilitation protocol is most beneficial for healing. Purpose: To determine whether early versus delayed passive range of motion (...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American journal of sports medicine 2015-08, Vol.43 (8), p.2057-2063
Main Authors: Kluczynski, Melissa A., Nayyar, Samir, Marzo, John M., Bisson, Leslie J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Arthroscopy
Humans
Meta-analysis
Range of Motion, Articular
Rehabilitation
Rotator Cuff - physiopathology
Rotator Cuff - surgery
Rotator Cuff Injuries
Sports injuries
Sports medicine
Systematic review
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Wound Healing
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Postoperative rehabilitation has been shown to affect healing of the rotator cuff after surgical repair. However, it is unknown whether an early or delayed rehabilitation protocol is most beneficial for healing. Purpose: To determine whether early versus delayed passive range of motion (PROM) affects rotator cuff (RC) retear rates after surgery. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review of the literature published between January 2003 and February 2014 was conducted. Retear rates were compared for early (within 1 week after surgery) versus delayed (3-6 weeks after surgery) PROM using χ2 or Fisher exact tests as well as relative risks (RR) and 95% CIs. In the first analysis, data from evidence level 1 studies that directly compared early versus delayed PROM were pooled; and in the second analysis, data from level 1 to 4 studies that did not directly compare early versus delayed PROM were pooled. The second analysis was stratified by tear size and repair method. Results: Twenty-eight studies (1729 repairs) were included. The first analysis of level 1 studies did not reveal a significant difference in retear rates for early (13.7%) versus delayed (10.5%) PROM (P = .36; RR = 1.30 [95% CI, 0.74-2.30]). The second analysis revealed that for ≤3 cm tears, the risk of retear was lower for early versus delayed PROM for transosseous (TO) plus single-row anchor (SA) repairs (18.7% vs 28.2%, P = .02; RR = 0.66 [95% CI, 0.47-0.95]). For >5 cm tears, the risk of retear was greater for early versus delayed PROM for double-row anchor (DA) repairs (56.4% vs 20%, P = .002; RR = 2.82 [95% CI, 1.31-6.07]) and for all repair methods combined (52.2% vs 22.6%, P = .01; RR = 2.31 [95% CI, 1.16-4.61]). There were no statistically significant associations for tears measuring 3 cm. Conclusion: Evidence is lacking with regard to the optimal timing of PROM after RC repair; however, this study suggests that tear size may be influential.
ISSN:0363-5465
1552-3365
DOI:10.1177/0363546514552802