Does physiotherapy after rotator cuff repair require supervision by a physical therapist?: a meta-analysis.

IF 1.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.5397/cise.2022.01410
Masaki Karasuyama, Masafumi Gotoh, Takuya Oike, Kenichi Nishie, Manaka Shibuya, Hidehiro Nakamura, Hiroki Ohzono, Junichi Kawakami
{"title":"Does physiotherapy after rotator cuff repair require supervision by a physical therapist?: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Masaki Karasuyama,&nbsp;Masafumi Gotoh,&nbsp;Takuya Oike,&nbsp;Kenichi Nishie,&nbsp;Manaka Shibuya,&nbsp;Hidehiro Nakamura,&nbsp;Hiroki Ohzono,&nbsp;Junichi Kawakami","doi":"10.5397/cise.2022.01410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A supervised physiotherapy program (SPP) is a standard regimen after surgical rotator cuff repair (RCR); however, the effect of a home-based exercise program (HEP), as an alternative, on postoperative functional recovery remains unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the functional effects of SPP and HEP after RCR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched electronic databases including Central, Medline, and Embase in April 2022. The primary outcomes included the Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California Los Angeles shoulder score, and pain score. Secondary outcomes included range of motion, muscle strength, retear rate, and patient satisfaction rate. A meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed on the pooled results to determine the significance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial database search yielded 848 records, five of which met our criteria. Variables at 3 months after surgery were successfully analyzed, including the Constant score (mean difference, -8.51 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -32.72 to 15.69; P=0.49) and pain score (mean difference, 0.02 cm; 95% CI, -2.29 to 2.33; P=0.99). There were no significant differences between the SPP and HEP. Other variables were not analyzed owing to the lack of data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our data showed no significant differences between SSP and HEP with regard to the Constant and pain scores at 3 months after RCR. These results suggest that HEP may be an alternative regimen after RCR. Level of evidence: I.</p>","PeriodicalId":33981,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","volume":"26 3","pages":"296-301"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ac/99/cise-2022-01410.PMC10497919.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2022.01410","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A supervised physiotherapy program (SPP) is a standard regimen after surgical rotator cuff repair (RCR); however, the effect of a home-based exercise program (HEP), as an alternative, on postoperative functional recovery remains unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the functional effects of SPP and HEP after RCR.

Methods: We searched electronic databases including Central, Medline, and Embase in April 2022. The primary outcomes included the Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California Los Angeles shoulder score, and pain score. Secondary outcomes included range of motion, muscle strength, retear rate, and patient satisfaction rate. A meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed on the pooled results to determine the significance.

Results: The initial database search yielded 848 records, five of which met our criteria. Variables at 3 months after surgery were successfully analyzed, including the Constant score (mean difference, -8.51 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -32.72 to 15.69; P=0.49) and pain score (mean difference, 0.02 cm; 95% CI, -2.29 to 2.33; P=0.99). There were no significant differences between the SPP and HEP. Other variables were not analyzed owing to the lack of data.

Conclusions: Our data showed no significant differences between SSP and HEP with regard to the Constant and pain scores at 3 months after RCR. These results suggest that HEP may be an alternative regimen after RCR. Level of evidence: I.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肩袖修复后的物理治疗是否需要物理治疗师的监督?荟萃分析。
背景:有监督的物理治疗方案(SPP)是手术后肩袖修复(RCR)的标准方案;然而,以家庭为基础的锻炼计划(HEP)作为替代方案对术后功能恢复的影响尚不清楚。因此,本荟萃分析的目的是比较RCR后SPP和HEP的功能影响。方法:于2022年4月检索Central、Medline、Embase等电子数据库。主要结果包括Constant评分、美国肩关节外科医生评分、加州大学洛杉矶分校肩关节评分和疼痛评分。次要结果包括活动范围、肌肉力量、恢复率和患者满意度。采用随机效应模型对合并结果进行荟萃分析以确定显著性。结果:最初的数据库搜索产生了848条记录,其中5条符合我们的标准。成功分析术后3个月的变量,包括Constant评分(平均差-8.51分;95%置信区间[CI], -32.72 ~ 15.69;P=0.49)和疼痛评分(平均差0.02 cm;95% CI, -2.29 ~ 2.33;P = 0.99)。SPP与HEP的差异无统计学意义。由于缺乏数据,没有分析其他变量。结论:我们的数据显示,在RCR后3个月,SSP和HEP在Constant和pain评分方面没有显著差异。这些结果表明HEP可能是RCR后的一种替代方案。证据等级:1。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Short-term outcomes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with biceps augmentation of subscapularis peel repair. Descriptive analysis of total elbow arthroplasty for distal humerus fractures: 30-day complications. Learning curve for the open Latarjet procedure: a single-surgeon study. Outcomes of lateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty versus latissimus dorsi transfer for external rotation deficit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reconsidering the clinical outcomes of the stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty design implant.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1