评估肩关节失稳手术后是否准备好重返运动场的客观方法尚未标准化:系统回顾

{"title":"评估肩关节失稳手术后是否准备好重返运动场的客观方法尚未标准化:系统回顾","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To report objective measures utilized to assess readiness to return to sport after shoulder instability procedures.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Our systematic review included studies if they assessed active individuals after a shoulder instability procedure with at least 1 patient-reported outcome or physical performance measure. We excluded studies of atraumatic instability, studies only reporting imaging, or studies of biomechanics. Risk of bias was assessed with the Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies tool, and studies were further scored with the Return to Sport Value Assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirty-seven articles selected for inclusion scored a median of 18.5 (comparative) and 10.0 (noncomparative) on the Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies and a mean of 2.5 on the Return to Sport Value Assessment. Twelve patient-reported outcomes were utilized across 19 studies to assess pain, function, and psychological readiness, with the Western Ontario Shoulder Index and the Shoulder Instability Return to Sport Index reported most frequently. Eighteen studies reported strength, most commonly internal and external rotation, and 18 studies reported range of motion. Physical performance tests, 6 discrete tests and 1 composite score, were less frequently reported (8 studies), with the Closed Kinetic Chain Upper Extremity Stability Test, Y-Balance Test of the Upper Quarter, and Unilateral Seated Shot-Put Test reported in more than 1 study. Deficits in patient-reported outcomes and limb symmetry persisted at the time of return to sport.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Most patients undergoing shoulder stabilization procedures regained fundamental strength and range of motion. However, some studies noted difficulties in achieving sufficient performance metrics for athletic activities 6 months postsurgery. Due to lack of standardized measures, recommendations for specific test components and benchmark data for clinical decision-making are not available.</div></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><div>Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34631,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Objective Measures for Assessing Readiness to Return to Sport After Shoulder Instability Procedures Are Not Standardized: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100978\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To report objective measures utilized to assess readiness to return to sport after shoulder instability procedures.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Our systematic review included studies if they assessed active individuals after a shoulder instability procedure with at least 1 patient-reported outcome or physical performance measure. We excluded studies of atraumatic instability, studies only reporting imaging, or studies of biomechanics. Risk of bias was assessed with the Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies tool, and studies were further scored with the Return to Sport Value Assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirty-seven articles selected for inclusion scored a median of 18.5 (comparative) and 10.0 (noncomparative) on the Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies and a mean of 2.5 on the Return to Sport Value Assessment. Twelve patient-reported outcomes were utilized across 19 studies to assess pain, function, and psychological readiness, with the Western Ontario Shoulder Index and the Shoulder Instability Return to Sport Index reported most frequently. Eighteen studies reported strength, most commonly internal and external rotation, and 18 studies reported range of motion. Physical performance tests, 6 discrete tests and 1 composite score, were less frequently reported (8 studies), with the Closed Kinetic Chain Upper Extremity Stability Test, Y-Balance Test of the Upper Quarter, and Unilateral Seated Shot-Put Test reported in more than 1 study. Deficits in patient-reported outcomes and limb symmetry persisted at the time of return to sport.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Most patients undergoing shoulder stabilization procedures regained fundamental strength and range of motion. However, some studies noted difficulties in achieving sufficient performance metrics for athletic activities 6 months postsurgery. Due to lack of standardized measures, recommendations for specific test components and benchmark data for clinical decision-making are not available.</div></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><div>Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34631,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X24001056\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X24001056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 报告用于评估肩关节不稳定术后恢复运动准备情况的客观测量方法。方法 我们的系统性综述纳入了对肩关节不稳定术后活跃个体进行评估的研究,这些研究至少包含一项患者报告的结果或身体表现测量方法。我们排除了非创伤性不稳定性研究、仅报告成像的研究或生物力学研究。结果37篇入选文章在 "非随机研究方法学项目 "中的得分中位数为18.5(比较)和10.0(非比较),在 "重返运动价值评估 "中的平均得分为2.5。19 项研究采用了 12 项患者报告结果来评估疼痛、功能和心理准备情况,其中以西安大略省肩关节指数和肩关节不稳定性恢复运动指数的报告最为常见。18 项研究报告了力量,其中最常见的是内旋和外旋,18 项研究报告了活动范围。体能测试(6 项离散测试和 1 项综合评分)的报告频率较低(8 项研究),但有 1 项以上的研究报告了闭合运动链上肢稳定性测试、上肢 Y 平衡测试和单侧坐姿投篮测试。结论大多数接受肩关节稳定手术的患者都恢复了基本力量和活动范围。结论大多数接受肩关节稳定术的患者都恢复了基本力量和活动范围,但一些研究指出,术后6个月内难以达到足够的运动表现指标。由于缺乏标准化的测量方法,因此无法为临床决策提供具体测试内容的建议和基准数据。证据级别IV级,对III级和IV级研究的系统性回顾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Objective Measures for Assessing Readiness to Return to Sport After Shoulder Instability Procedures Are Not Standardized: A Systematic Review

Purpose

To report objective measures utilized to assess readiness to return to sport after shoulder instability procedures.

Methods

Our systematic review included studies if they assessed active individuals after a shoulder instability procedure with at least 1 patient-reported outcome or physical performance measure. We excluded studies of atraumatic instability, studies only reporting imaging, or studies of biomechanics. Risk of bias was assessed with the Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies tool, and studies were further scored with the Return to Sport Value Assessment.

Results

Thirty-seven articles selected for inclusion scored a median of 18.5 (comparative) and 10.0 (noncomparative) on the Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies and a mean of 2.5 on the Return to Sport Value Assessment. Twelve patient-reported outcomes were utilized across 19 studies to assess pain, function, and psychological readiness, with the Western Ontario Shoulder Index and the Shoulder Instability Return to Sport Index reported most frequently. Eighteen studies reported strength, most commonly internal and external rotation, and 18 studies reported range of motion. Physical performance tests, 6 discrete tests and 1 composite score, were less frequently reported (8 studies), with the Closed Kinetic Chain Upper Extremity Stability Test, Y-Balance Test of the Upper Quarter, and Unilateral Seated Shot-Put Test reported in more than 1 study. Deficits in patient-reported outcomes and limb symmetry persisted at the time of return to sport.

Conclusions

Most patients undergoing shoulder stabilization procedures regained fundamental strength and range of motion. However, some studies noted difficulties in achieving sufficient performance metrics for athletic activities 6 months postsurgery. Due to lack of standardized measures, recommendations for specific test components and benchmark data for clinical decision-making are not available.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
218
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊最新文献
Continuous Meniscal Repair Technique Allows for Shorter Operative Time and Learning Curve Compared With Traditional Vertical Mattress Technique in Controlled Arthroscopic Training in Porcine Model Concomitant Popliteomeniscal Fascicles Tears Are Found in 21% of Professional Soccer Players With Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries Mini-Open Technique for Gluteus Medius Tendon Repairs Is Associated With Low Complication Rates and Sustained Improvement in Patient Reported Outcomes at 2-Year Follow-Up The Top-20 Studies About Anterior Shoulder Instability From an Altmetric Analysis Had Higher Levels of Evidence Than Those From a Traditional Bibliometric Analysis Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Augmented With a Reinforced Bioinductive Implant Is Biomechanically Similar to the Native Medial Patellofemoral Ligament at Time Zero in a Cadaveric Model
×
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