Dataset Information

Publicly Accessible Rehabilitation Protocols for Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction Are Widely Variable.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the availability and variability of publicly accessible acromioclavicular (AC) joint reconstruction rehabilitation protocols.

Methods

Protocols were identified by searching the websites of orthopedic surgery residency programs in the United States located from the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System. Private practice groups with publicly available protocols were also included.

Results

Twenty-one protocols were included for review. Four of 14 (29%) protocols suggested starting passive range of motion (ROM) at postoperative week 2. Six of 20 (30%) protocols recommended initiation of full ROM at 6 weeks. Active ROM beginning at 6 weeks was recommended by 6 of 20 (30%) protocols. Six of 16 (38%) protocols recommended initiating active assisted ROM at 6 weeks. Sling immobilization for 6 weeks was recommended by 8 of 18 (44%) protocols. Shoulder isometric exercise initiated at 4 weeks was recommended by 4 of 13 (31%) protocols. Seven of 21 (33%) protocols recommended initiating shoulder strengthening at 12 weeks postoperatively. Return to sport time was included in 17 (81%) protocols with a range of 12 to 48 weeks (mean, 22 weeks).

Conclusions

There was substantial variability in publicly accessible AC joint rehabilitation protocols, including a wide range in the recommendations for appropriate time to return to sport. Although strengthening exercises, active ROM, and active assisted ROM were recommended by most protocols, there were considerable differences in recommendations for when to initiate these rehabilitation components.

Clinical relevance

Rehabilitation is important for outcomes of AC joint reconstruction. This study shows the variability present in rehabilitation recommendations among online-accessible AC joint reconstruction rehabilitation protocols.

SUBMITTER: Cheema SG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8129471 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo compare publicly available rehabilitation protocols designated for meniscal repairs published online to determine the variability in meniscus repair protocols including different types of tears (radial vs nonradial repairs).MethodsFrom the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System (FREIDA), a list of publicly available academic residency programs and orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships was obtained. With this list, an electronic search using Google was performed looking for meniscal repair rehabilitation protocols. In addition to academic institutions, private practice organizations with published meniscus repair rehabilitation protocols found during the search also were examined.ResultsOf 189 academic institutions, a total of 30 academic institutions had protocols that were included. Another 29 private practice programs were subsequently found and included. In total, 59 rehabilitation protocols fit the inclusion criteria. Six of the 59 specified radial repair and 53 did not. For return to full range of motion, nonradial protocols averaged 6.7 weeks and radial protocols averaged 7.3 weeks. For return to full weight-bearing, nonradial protocols averaged 6.2 weeks and radial protocols averaged 7.5 weeks. For return to sport, nonradial protocols averaged 17.8 weeks and radial protocols averaged 23.3 weeks. For time spent in a brace, nonradial protocols averaged 5.7 weeks and radial protocols averaged 6.7 weeks.ConclusionsOf publicly available meniscal repair rehabilitation protocols, a small percentage (10.2%) changed their protocol in relation to tear type and there was a wide range of timeframes for each rehabilitation component. Protocols for radial tears tended to brace patients longer, limit their range of motion longer, delay full weight-bearing, and delay return to sport. However, it is recognized that some surgeons could be modifying their protocols in relation to tear type without publishing that information online.Clinical relevanceAs stated in the purpose, the point of this study was to access only the protocols that would be available to the public. If anything, awareness should be raised for surgeons to look at their existing protocols and update them if they are truly incomplete and outdated. More research needs to be done to structure a rehabilitation protocol that is specific to the meniscal tear type, as the current protocols have a wide range of variance.

Project description:PurposeTo screen manuscripts that discuss rehabilitation protocols for patients who underwent superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) to elucidate whether a standard rehabilitation algorithm exists for SCR.MethodsA systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (i.e., PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase were searched using pertinent Boolean operation terms "superior capsular reconstruction" and "rotator cuff repair rehabilitation," and articles that included rehabilitation protocols following superior capsular reconstruction surgery were reviewed. Two independent reviewers performed the search and quality assessment.ResultsA total of 549 articles were yielded after our database search. Fourteen studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Study designs included 9 editorials, 3 case series, and 2 case reports. Each study included in this review used a unique rehabilitation algorithm that posed significant variability between the protocols. Four phases were identified to summarize each protocol and were used as a basis of discussion-sling versus brace time (3-6 weeks for comfort/removal vs complete immobilization), passive range of motion (immediately after surgery to initiation at 6 weeks), active range of motion (4-8 weeks), and strengthening/return to full activity (12-52 weeks). Initiation of rehabilitation, length of time spent in each phase, types of exercises, and overarching goals for return to function were significantly variable and were decided upon by the surgeon based on current massive rotator cuff repair protocols. Presently, there is no standard rehabilitation protocol for SCR.ConclusionsSCR is a relatively new procedure that is gaining rapid popularity with promising outcomes. Based on our review, there is no standard rehabilitation protocol in place; thus, it is not possible to recommend an evidence-based rehabilitation protocol following SCR at this time.Level of evidenceLevel V, systematic review of Level IV and V studies.