Abstract
PurposeThis study aimed to compare postoperative clinical outcomes at the 3-month, 6-month, 12-month, and latest follow-up in patients undergoing supervised physical therapy (PT) or a home-based exercise program after arthroscopic repair (ARCR) of massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs). MethodsA retrospective review was conducted on a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent either supervised PT or home-based therapy after ARCR of MRCTs between January 2015 and December 2018 at a single center with a minimum 24-month follow-up. At their 2-week postoperative routine follow-up, patients are allowed to choose between home-based and supervised PT. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and range of motion (ROM) were collected and compared between cohorts preoperatively and at the 3-month, 6-month, 12-month, and latest follow-up. The percentage of patients reaching or exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient accepted symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score (ASES), and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) were recorded for both cohorts at each time point. Complications, healing, satisfaction, and return to work were reported. Healing was evaluated via ultrasound at the latest follow-up. ResultsNinety-nine patients met the study criteria: 61 in the supervised PT cohort, and 38 in the home-based cohort. The supervised PT and home-based cohorts returned to clinic for their most recent follow-up at 53±20 and 55±16 months (p=0.496) after surgery, respectively. There was no difference when comparing tendon involvement (SS, p=0.574; IS, p=0.288; SSc p=0.592), tear retraction (p=0.603), or high-grade fatty infiltration (SS, p=0.684; IS, p-0.397; SSc p=0.473) based on preoperative MRI assessment and surgery-related factors, including anterior (p=0.473) or posterior (p=0.386) slides, fixation constructs (p=0.829), or complete repair (p=0.912). Both cohorts showed similar PROs and ROM at baseline. Postoperative PROs and ROM were similar among groups at the 3-month, 6-month, 12-month, and latest follow-up. However, ASES (71.4 vs 61.2; p = 0.013) and FF (135° vs 118°; p = 0.023) were significantly higher at 3-month follow-up in the home-based cohort. Both groups comparably achieved MCID and PASS for PROs at the 3-month, 6-month, and12-month follow-up. At the latest follow-up, the supervised PT and home-based cohort achieved MCID and PASS for VAS (75% vs 81%, p=0.573; 70% vs 72%, p=0.911), ASES (76% vs 74%, p=0.777; 72% vs 72%, p=0.873), and SSV (82% vs 84%, p=0.734; 72% vs 66%, p=0.489), respectively. Satisfaction, healing, complication, and return to work rates were similar. ConclusionPatients undergoing rehabilitation using a home-based protocol showed largely similar functional scores and healing to those with supervised PT after ARCR of MRCTs at the latest follow-up. Although patients with home-based therapy achieved higher FF and ASES at the 3-month follow-up, these became comparable starting at the 6-month postoperative mark. MCID and PASS were achieved similarly for PROs at each time point.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
