Objective Measures for Assessing Readiness to Return to Sport After Shoulder Instability Procedures Are Not Standardized: A Systematic Review

Abstract

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.