No Clinically Significant Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes and Range of Motion Between Early and Delayed Mobilization After Primary Distal Biceps Tendon Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 4.2 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Evan R Simpson, Harkirat Jawanda, Ishani Patel, Nikhil N Verma, Kevin C Parvaresh
{"title":"No Clinically Significant Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes and Range of Motion Between Early and Delayed Mobilization After Primary Distal Biceps Tendon Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Evan R Simpson, Harkirat Jawanda, Ishani Patel, Nikhil N Verma, Kevin C Parvaresh","doi":"10.1177/03635465251317207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently, there is no uniform rehabilitation program concerning mobilization after a distal biceps tendon repair. A systematic review was conducted to investigate the effect of restrictions within the immediate postoperative period to evaluate clinical outcomes relative to mobilization after surgical repair of complete distal biceps tendon tears.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>Early mobilization will not have a significant difference on outcomes compared with delayed mobilization.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors performed a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines of studies reporting outcomes of the distal biceps tendon repair. The early mobilization cohort included studies with no restrictions beyond 2 weeks after surgery, and the delayed mobilization cohort included studies with continued restrictions beyond 2 weeks after surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 26 studies with 1114 patients (643 in the delayed mobilization cohort and 471 in the early mobilization cohort) met the inclusion criteria, with a weighted mean patient age of 45.14 years (range, 18-76 years) and a mean follow-up of 27.9 months (range, 3-120 months). Meta-analysis at the 24-month follow-up found that range of motion (ROM) was not significantly different across early and delayed mobilization cohorts for flexion (mean, 137.38° vs 140.42°; <i>P</i> = .34) and extension (mean, 3.23° vs 1.5°; <i>P</i> = .91). Early mobilization was found to be significantly associated with less pronation (mean, 75.68° vs 83.18°; <i>P</i> = .0019) and supination (mean, 76.38° vs 83.93°; <i>P</i> = .0049). Analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) found that Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores (mean, 3.93 vs 4.21; <i>P</i> = .77) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score values (mean, 96.33 vs 97.11;<i>P</i> = .65) were not significantly different across cohorts. Failure analysis found a significant difference when comparing proportion (mean, 0.0006 vs 0.0185; <i>P</i> = .0029) but no difference when comparing incidence rate (mean, 0.0001 vs 0.0001; <i>P</i> = .647). Complication analysis found no statistical difference in proportion (mean, 0.2181 vs 0.1918; <i>P</i> = .7388) or incidence rate (mean, 0.0012 vs 0.008; <i>P</i> = .344).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results suggest there may be no clinically significant difference in failure rates, complications, ROM, or PROs for early versus delayed mobilization after primary distal biceps tendon repair.</p>","PeriodicalId":55528,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"3635465251317207"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465251317207","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Currently, there is no uniform rehabilitation program concerning mobilization after a distal biceps tendon repair. A systematic review was conducted to investigate the effect of restrictions within the immediate postoperative period to evaluate clinical outcomes relative to mobilization after surgical repair of complete distal biceps tendon tears.

Hypothesis: Early mobilization will not have a significant difference on outcomes compared with delayed mobilization.

Study design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: The authors performed a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines of studies reporting outcomes of the distal biceps tendon repair. The early mobilization cohort included studies with no restrictions beyond 2 weeks after surgery, and the delayed mobilization cohort included studies with continued restrictions beyond 2 weeks after surgery.

Results: A total of 26 studies with 1114 patients (643 in the delayed mobilization cohort and 471 in the early mobilization cohort) met the inclusion criteria, with a weighted mean patient age of 45.14 years (range, 18-76 years) and a mean follow-up of 27.9 months (range, 3-120 months). Meta-analysis at the 24-month follow-up found that range of motion (ROM) was not significantly different across early and delayed mobilization cohorts for flexion (mean, 137.38° vs 140.42°; P = .34) and extension (mean, 3.23° vs 1.5°; P = .91). Early mobilization was found to be significantly associated with less pronation (mean, 75.68° vs 83.18°; P = .0019) and supination (mean, 76.38° vs 83.93°; P = .0049). Analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) found that Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores (mean, 3.93 vs 4.21; P = .77) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score values (mean, 96.33 vs 97.11;P = .65) were not significantly different across cohorts. Failure analysis found a significant difference when comparing proportion (mean, 0.0006 vs 0.0185; P = .0029) but no difference when comparing incidence rate (mean, 0.0001 vs 0.0001; P = .647). Complication analysis found no statistical difference in proportion (mean, 0.2181 vs 0.1918; P = .7388) or incidence rate (mean, 0.0012 vs 0.008; P = .344).

Conclusion: These results suggest there may be no clinically significant difference in failure rates, complications, ROM, or PROs for early versus delayed mobilization after primary distal biceps tendon repair.

二头肌远端肌腱修复术后早期和延迟活动患者报告的结果和活动范围无临床显著差异:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:目前,关于肱二头肌远端肌腱修复后的活动尚无统一的康复方案。我们进行了一项系统的综述,研究术后立即限制的影响,以评估手术修复肱二头肌远端肌腱完全撕裂后活动的临床结果。假设:与延迟动员相比,早期动员对结果没有显著差异。研究设计:荟萃分析;证据水平,3。方法:作者按照PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南对报告肱二头肌远端肌腱修复结果的研究进行了系统综述。早期活动队列包括术后2周后无限制的研究,延迟活动队列包括术后2周后仍有限制的研究。结果:共有26项研究1114例患者(延迟动员队列643例,早期动员队列471例)符合纳入标准,加权平均患者年龄45.14岁(范围18-76岁),平均随访时间27.9个月(范围3-120个月)。24个月随访的荟萃分析发现,在屈曲的早期和延迟活动队列中,活动范围(ROM)没有显著差异(平均,137.38°vs 140.42°;P = .34)和扩展(平均3.23°vs 1.5°;P = .91)。发现早期活动与较小的内旋显著相关(平均75.68°vs 83.18°;P = 0.0019)和旋后(平均76.38°vs 83.93°;P = .0049)。对患者报告结果(PROs)的分析发现,手臂、肩膀和手的残疾评分(平均值,3.93 vs 4.21;P = 0.77)和Mayo肘部功能评分值(平均96.33 vs 97.11;P = 0.65)在队列间无显著差异。失效分析发现,当比较比例(平均值,0.0006 vs 0.0185;P = 0.0029),但在比较发病率时无差异(平均0.0001 vs 0.0001;P = .647)。并发症分析未见统计学差异(平均0.2181 vs 0.1918;P = .7388)或发病率(平均0.0012 vs 0.008;P = .344)。结论:这些结果表明,二头肌远端肌腱修复后早期和延迟活动的失败率、并发症、ROM或PROs在临床上可能没有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
425
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: An invaluable resource for the orthopaedic sports medicine community, _The American Journal of Sports Medicine_ is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, first published in 1972. It is the official publication of the [American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)](http://www.sportsmed.org/)! The journal acts as an important forum for independent orthopaedic sports medicine research and education, allowing clinical practitioners the ability to make decisions based on sound scientific information. This journal is a must-read for: * Orthopaedic Surgeons and Specialists * Sports Medicine Physicians * Physiatrists * Athletic Trainers * Team Physicians * And Physical Therapists
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信