Rotator Cuff Repair Rehabilitation: A Level I and II Systematic Review

Abstract

Background: There is no consensus for the optimal postoperative rehabilitation protocol after rotator cuff repairs. Objective: To determine if there is sufficient level I or II evidence available in the literature for establishment of a uniform, optimal rotator cuff rehabilitation protocol. Data Sources: A systematic review of level I and II English-language, prospective, randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2008 was performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and secondary references were appraised for studies that met the inclusion criteria. Search terms included rotator cuff, supraspinatus, infraspinatus, subscapularis, teres minor, rehab, rehabilitation, physical therapy, and physiotherapy. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were English-language level I or level II studies, including randomized clinical trials involving the rehabilitation of rotator cuff repairs. Exclusion criteria were non-English language, level IV or V studies, or studies involving shoulder rehabilitation of diagnoses other than rotator cuff repairs. Three independent reviewers arrived at a consensus for including 4 studies in this review out of 12 studies identified by the literature search. Data Extraction: Included studies underwent worksheet quality appraisal independently by each of the 3 authors identifying strengths, weaknesses, and biases. The quality appraisal was then discussed among the authors and consensus reached regarding the strengths, weaknesses, and value of the included studies. Results: Two studies examined the use of continuous passive motion for rotator cuff rehabilitation, and 2 studies compared an unsupervised, standardized rehabilitation program to a supervised, individualized rehabilitation program. These studies did not support the use of continuous passive motion in rotator cuff rehabilitation, and no advantage was shown with a supervised, individualized rehabilitation protocol compared to an unsupervised, standardized home program. Each investigation had weaknesses in study design that decreased the validity of its findings. Conclusion: There is not enough high-level evidence to develop an evidence-based medicine approach to rotator cuff rehabilitation. There is a need for well-designed level I and level II trials to elucidate the optimal rotator cuff repair rehabilitation protocol.