Rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair is crucial for functional recovery and for minimizing the risk of retear. There are two rehabilitation protocols (early and traditional) and the debate about which is the best is open. This umbrella review aimed to compare the effect of these rehabilitation protocols in terms of reduction in pain, functional recovery, and retear risk. We selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2012 and 2022 dealing with the aim. Nineteen systematic reviews were included. No significant differences were found between early and traditional protocols in terms of pain reduction. Early rehabilitation provided better short-term results regarding Range of Motion improvement, but long-term functional outcomes were similar. Retear risk remains a significant concern for the early protocol. We found major differences between the analyzed protocols. This review suggests that both protocols are useful to recover global shoulder function, but the standard protocol has a greater safety profile for larger tears. On the other hand, the early protocol may be preferable for smaller lesions, allowing a faster recovery and having less impact on medical costs. Further research is needed to identify optimal rehabilitation strategies tailored to the individual patient’s needs and characteristics.
Comparison of early versus traditional rehabilitation protocol after rotator cuff repair: an umbrella-review / Paolucci, T.; Agostini, F.; Conti, M.; Cazzolla, S.; Mussomeli, E.; Santilli, G.; Poso, F.; Bernetti, A.; Paoloni, M.; Mangone, M.. - In: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE. - ISSN 2077-0383. - 12:21(2023), pp. 1-17. [10.3390/jcm12216743]
Comparison of early versus traditional rehabilitation protocol after rotator cuff repair: an umbrella-review
Agostini F.
;Conti M.;Cazzolla S.;Mussomeli E.;Paoloni M.;Mangone M.
2023
Abstract
Rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair is crucial for functional recovery and for minimizing the risk of retear. There are two rehabilitation protocols (early and traditional) and the debate about which is the best is open. This umbrella review aimed to compare the effect of these rehabilitation protocols in terms of reduction in pain, functional recovery, and retear risk. We selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2012 and 2022 dealing with the aim. Nineteen systematic reviews were included. No significant differences were found between early and traditional protocols in terms of pain reduction. Early rehabilitation provided better short-term results regarding Range of Motion improvement, but long-term functional outcomes were similar. Retear risk remains a significant concern for the early protocol. We found major differences between the analyzed protocols. This review suggests that both protocols are useful to recover global shoulder function, but the standard protocol has a greater safety profile for larger tears. On the other hand, the early protocol may be preferable for smaller lesions, allowing a faster recovery and having less impact on medical costs. Further research is needed to identify optimal rehabilitation strategies tailored to the individual patient’s needs and characteristics.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Paolucci_Comparision_2023.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
505.31 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
505.31 kB | Adobe PDF |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.