A High Percentage of Healthy Volunteers Fail to Pass Criteria-based Return to Sport Testing for Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

IF 5.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-04 DOI:10.1016/j.arthro.2025.01.047
Mathew Hargreaves B.S. , Audria Wood M.P.H. , Nick Manfredi B.S. , Dev Dayal B.S. , Jacobi Hudson B.S. , Kaitlin Higgins Pyrz B.S. , Mike Bagwell P.T., D.P.T. , Aaron Casp M.D. , Thomas Evely D.O. , Eugene Brabston M.D. , Kevin Wilk P.T., D.P.T. , Amit Momaya M.D.
{"title":"A High Percentage of Healthy Volunteers Fail to Pass Criteria-based Return to Sport Testing for Arthroscopic Bankart Repair","authors":"Mathew Hargreaves B.S. ,&nbsp;Audria Wood M.P.H. ,&nbsp;Nick Manfredi B.S. ,&nbsp;Dev Dayal B.S. ,&nbsp;Jacobi Hudson B.S. ,&nbsp;Kaitlin Higgins Pyrz B.S. ,&nbsp;Mike Bagwell P.T., D.P.T. ,&nbsp;Aaron Casp M.D. ,&nbsp;Thomas Evely D.O. ,&nbsp;Eugene Brabston M.D. ,&nbsp;Kevin Wilk P.T., D.P.T. ,&nbsp;Amit Momaya M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2025.01.047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To evaluate whether healthy volunteers can pass a previously published criteria-based return to sport (CBRTS) protocol after Bankart repair.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a prospective evaluation of asymptomatic volunteers conducted in March 2024. This study included 26 volunteers with no history of upper-extremity injury or surgery. Volunteers were assessed according to a published CBRTS protocol: (1) isometric testing of external rotation (ER) and internal rotation (IR) in the supine and prone position assessed by hand–held dynamometry; (2) isokinetic strength testing of ER and IR assessed by isokinetic dynamometry; (3) endurance testing of side lying ER, prone ER, and prone Y test; and (4) functional testing via closed kinetic chain upper extremity (CKCUE) stability test and unilateral shot put test. A limb symmetry index (LSI) and proportion of volunteers who passed each test were calculated. A passing LSI value was defined as LSI within 10% of the contralateral side, except for the shot put test, for which a passing value was defined as 80% ≤ LSI ≤ 110%. A passing score for the CKCUE stability test was ≥21.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>No individual participant passed all the tests; instead, an individual on average passed 47% of the CBRTS protocol. On average, the proportion of participants who passed isometric testing was 60.6% (range 46.2-69.2). For isokinetic testing, the proportion of participants passing was 41.4% (range 30.8-57.7). For endurance testing, the proportion of participants passing was 23.1% (range 19.2-30.8). Lastly, 50% of participants passed the CKCUE stability test, whereas 96.2% passed the unilateral shot put test. A nondominant arm deficit was apparent in 4 of the 12 bilateral arm tests.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study shows that a high percentage of healthy individuals are unable to pass many of the post-Bankart repair CBRTS protocol tests. Specifically, no participant passed all the tests and individuals only passed 47% of the tests on average.</div></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><div>Level III, prospective single-cohort study.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":"41 8","pages":"Pages 2785-2791"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749806325000659","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate whether healthy volunteers can pass a previously published criteria-based return to sport (CBRTS) protocol after Bankart repair.

Methods

This was a prospective evaluation of asymptomatic volunteers conducted in March 2024. This study included 26 volunteers with no history of upper-extremity injury or surgery. Volunteers were assessed according to a published CBRTS protocol: (1) isometric testing of external rotation (ER) and internal rotation (IR) in the supine and prone position assessed by hand–held dynamometry; (2) isokinetic strength testing of ER and IR assessed by isokinetic dynamometry; (3) endurance testing of side lying ER, prone ER, and prone Y test; and (4) functional testing via closed kinetic chain upper extremity (CKCUE) stability test and unilateral shot put test. A limb symmetry index (LSI) and proportion of volunteers who passed each test were calculated. A passing LSI value was defined as LSI within 10% of the contralateral side, except for the shot put test, for which a passing value was defined as 80% ≤ LSI ≤ 110%. A passing score for the CKCUE stability test was ≥21.

Results

No individual participant passed all the tests; instead, an individual on average passed 47% of the CBRTS protocol. On average, the proportion of participants who passed isometric testing was 60.6% (range 46.2-69.2). For isokinetic testing, the proportion of participants passing was 41.4% (range 30.8-57.7). For endurance testing, the proportion of participants passing was 23.1% (range 19.2-30.8). Lastly, 50% of participants passed the CKCUE stability test, whereas 96.2% passed the unilateral shot put test. A nondominant arm deficit was apparent in 4 of the 12 bilateral arm tests.

Conclusions

This study shows that a high percentage of healthy individuals are unable to pass many of the post-Bankart repair CBRTS protocol tests. Specifically, no participant passed all the tests and individuals only passed 47% of the tests on average.

Level of Evidence

Level III, prospective single-cohort study.
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
高百分比的健康志愿者未能通过关节镜Bankart修复的基于标准的恢复运动测试。
目的:本研究旨在评估健康志愿者在Bankart修复后是否能通过先前公布的基于标准的运动恢复(CBRTS)方案。方法:这是一项于2024年3月对无症状志愿者进行的前瞻性评估。这项研究包括26名没有上肢损伤或手术史的志愿者。根据已发表的CBRTS方案对志愿者进行评估:(i)通过手持式测力仪对仰卧位和俯卧位的外旋(ER)和内旋(IR)进行等长测试;(ii)用等速动力测量法评估内能和红外线的等速强度测试;(iii)侧卧ER、俯卧ER、俯卧Y型耐力试验;(iv)通过上肢闭合动力链(CKCUE)稳定性试验和单侧铅球试验进行功能测试。计算肢体对称指数(LSI)和通过每项测试的志愿者比例。合格的LSI值定义为LSI在对侧10%以内,铅球测试除外,合格的LSI值定义为80%≤LSI≤110%。CKCUE稳定性试验的合格分≥21分。结果:没有个体参与者通过所有测试;相反,一个人平均通过了47%的CBRTS协议。平均而言,参与者通过等长测试的比例为60.6%(范围,46.2-69.2)。在等速测试中,参与者合格率为41.4%(范围30.8- 57.7%)。耐力测试合格率为23.1%(范围19.2 ~ 30.8)。最后,50%的参与者通过了CKCUE稳定性测试,96.2%的参与者通过了单侧铅球测试。12例双侧手臂试验中有4例出现明显的非优势臂缺陷。结论:本研究表明,很大比例的健康个体无法通过许多bankart后修复CBRTS协议测试。具体来说,没有参与者通过了所有的测试,个体仅通过了47%的平均证据水平:III,前瞻性单队列研究。
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
9.30
自引率
17.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Commentary: The Limitations of Elbow Valgus Torque as an Injury Predictor. Arthroscopy Honors Our 2025 Annual Award Winners Across All Platforms. Be an Expert in Your Field. Optimize Outcomes. Don't Stray Too Far From Your Area of Expertise. Editorial Commentary: Two Hips, One Patient: Insights From Staged Bilateral Hip Arthroscopy. Quadriceps Tendon Autograft Produces Favorable Return to Sport, Strength, Range of Motion, Retear Rate, and Midterm Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
×
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:604180095
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