No Clinically Significant Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes and Range of Motion Between Early and Delayed Mobilization After Primary Distal Biceps Tendon Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 4.2 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS American Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-19 DOI:10.1177/03635465251317207
Evan R Simpson, Harkirat Jawanda, Ishani Patel, Nikhil N Verma, Kevin C Parvaresh
{"title":"No Clinically Significant Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes and Range of Motion Between Early and Delayed Mobilization After Primary Distal Biceps Tendon Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Evan R Simpson, Harkirat Jawanda, Ishani Patel, Nikhil N Verma, Kevin C Parvaresh","doi":"10.1177/03635465251317207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently, there is no uniform rehabilitation program concerning mobilization after a distal biceps tendon repair. A systematic review was conducted to investigate the effect of restrictions within the immediate postoperative period to evaluate clinical outcomes relative to mobilization after surgical repair of complete distal biceps tendon tears.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>Early mobilization will not have a significant difference on outcomes compared with delayed mobilization.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors performed a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines of studies reporting outcomes of the distal biceps tendon repair. The early mobilization cohort included studies with no restrictions beyond 2 weeks after surgery, and the delayed mobilization cohort included studies with continued restrictions beyond 2 weeks after surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 26 studies with 1114 patients (643 in the delayed mobilization cohort and 471 in the early mobilization cohort) met the inclusion criteria, with a weighted mean patient age of 45.14 years (range, 18-76 years) and a mean follow-up of 27.9 months (range, 3-120 months). Meta-analysis at the 24-month follow-up found that range of motion (ROM) was not significantly different across early and delayed mobilization cohorts for flexion (mean, 137.38° vs 140.42°; <i>P</i> = .34) and extension (mean, 3.23° vs 1.5°; <i>P</i> = .91). Early mobilization was found to be significantly associated with less pronation (mean, 75.68° vs 83.18°; <i>P</i> = .0019) and supination (mean, 76.38° vs 83.93°; <i>P</i> = .0049). Analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) found that Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores (mean, 3.93 vs 4.21; <i>P</i> = .77) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score values (mean, 96.33 vs 97.11;<i>P</i> = .65) were not significantly different across cohorts. Failure analysis found a significant difference when comparing proportion (mean, 0.0006 vs 0.0185; <i>P</i> = .0029) but no difference when comparing incidence rate (mean, 0.0001 vs 0.0001; <i>P</i> = .647). Complication analysis found no statistical difference in proportion (mean, 0.2181 vs 0.1918; <i>P</i> = .7388) or incidence rate (mean, 0.0012 vs 0.008; <i>P</i> = .344).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results suggest there may be no clinically significant difference in failure rates, complications, ROM, or PROs for early versus delayed mobilization after primary distal biceps tendon repair.</p>","PeriodicalId":55528,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"3635465251317207"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465251317207","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Currently, there is no uniform rehabilitation program concerning mobilization after a distal biceps tendon repair. A systematic review was conducted to investigate the effect of restrictions within the immediate postoperative period to evaluate clinical outcomes relative to mobilization after surgical repair of complete distal biceps tendon tears.

Hypothesis: Early mobilization will not have a significant difference on outcomes compared with delayed mobilization.

Study design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: The authors performed a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines of studies reporting outcomes of the distal biceps tendon repair. The early mobilization cohort included studies with no restrictions beyond 2 weeks after surgery, and the delayed mobilization cohort included studies with continued restrictions beyond 2 weeks after surgery.

Results: A total of 26 studies with 1114 patients (643 in the delayed mobilization cohort and 471 in the early mobilization cohort) met the inclusion criteria, with a weighted mean patient age of 45.14 years (range, 18-76 years) and a mean follow-up of 27.9 months (range, 3-120 months). Meta-analysis at the 24-month follow-up found that range of motion (ROM) was not significantly different across early and delayed mobilization cohorts for flexion (mean, 137.38° vs 140.42°; P = .34) and extension (mean, 3.23° vs 1.5°; P = .91). Early mobilization was found to be significantly associated with less pronation (mean, 75.68° vs 83.18°; P = .0019) and supination (mean, 76.38° vs 83.93°; P = .0049). Analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) found that Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores (mean, 3.93 vs 4.21; P = .77) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score values (mean, 96.33 vs 97.11;P = .65) were not significantly different across cohorts. Failure analysis found a significant difference when comparing proportion (mean, 0.0006 vs 0.0185; P = .0029) but no difference when comparing incidence rate (mean, 0.0001 vs 0.0001; P = .647). Complication analysis found no statistical difference in proportion (mean, 0.2181 vs 0.1918; P = .7388) or incidence rate (mean, 0.0012 vs 0.008; P = .344).

Conclusion: These results suggest there may be no clinically significant difference in failure rates, complications, ROM, or PROs for early versus delayed mobilization after primary distal biceps tendon repair.

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
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
12.50%
发文量
425
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: An invaluable resource for the orthopaedic sports medicine community, _The American Journal of Sports Medicine_ is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, first published in 1972. It is the official publication of the [American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)](http://www.sportsmed.org/)! The journal acts as an important forum for independent orthopaedic sports medicine research and education, allowing clinical practitioners the ability to make decisions based on sound scientific information. This journal is a must-read for: * Orthopaedic Surgeons and Specialists * Sports Medicine Physicians * Physiatrists * Athletic Trainers * Team Physicians * And Physical Therapists
期刊最新文献
Mechanisms of Action of Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Targeted Review of the Literature. No Clinically Significant Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes and Range of Motion Between Early and Delayed Mobilization After Primary Distal Biceps Tendon Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Anatomic Drivers of J-Sign Presence and Severity: If There Is a Jump, Look for a Bump. The Use of Customized 3D-Printed Guides in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Compared With Conventional Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. The Chance to Become an Elite Athlete After Pediatric And Adolescent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
×
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