Igor J Shirinskiy, Cain Rutgers, Inger N Sierevelt, Simone Priester-Vink, David Ring, Michel Pj van den Bekerom, Lukas Pe Verweij
{"title":"运动康复标准不明确，康复失败率不一致，原因多种多样，但不一定与上唇韧带治疗有关：系统回顾。","authors":"Igor J Shirinskiy, Cain Rutgers, Inger N Sierevelt, Simone Priester-Vink, David Ring, Michel Pj van den Bekerom, Lukas Pe Verweij","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.09.053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine (1) which criteria are used to determine return to sport (RTS), (2) the number of patients who are unable to RTS after any superior labral pathophysiology treatment, and (3) which reasons are reported for not returning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was performed across 5 databases, including studies that report rates for RTS after any treatment of superior labral pathophysiology. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Definitions for no return to sport (nRTS) were extracted as reported in the studies. The ranges of nRTS and no return to preinjury level (nRTPL) were summarized. Reasons for nRTS and nRTPL were categorized using a predefined coding scheme.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 45 studies with level of evidence ranging from II to IV, 1,857 patients were involved in sports, 78% (n = 1453) of whom underwent superior labral reattachment, 21% (n = 381) biceps tenodesis, and 9.4% (n = 175) nonoperative treatment. None of the studies provided criteria for RTS, and 2 studies provided criteria for return to preinjury level. The ranges of nRTS and nRTPL varied after superior labral reattachment (0-60%, n = 206; 0-89%, n = 424, respectively), biceps tenodesis (0-25%, n = 43; 3, 8%-48%, n = 78), and nonoperative treatment (11%-75%, n = 62; 18%-100%, n = 78). Reasons for nRTS and nRTPL were related to physical sensations (pain, feeling of instability, discomfort, weakness, lack of motion), psychological factors (fear of reinjury, lack of confidence), personal factors (lifestyle change, social reasons), and injury at another site.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Criteria for determining successful RTS and return to preinjury level after superior labral pathophysiology treatment were not reported by most studies. The nRTS and nRTPL rates varied greatly within and between treatments. The reasons for this unsuccessful return were diverse and related to physical sensations, psychological factors, personal factors, and injury unrelated to treatment.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IV, Systematic review of Level II-IV studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ill-defined Return-to-Sport Criteria and Inconsistent Unsuccessful Return Rates Caused by Various Reasons Not Necessarily Related to Treatment After Superior Labral Treatments: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Igor J Shirinskiy, Cain Rutgers, Inger N Sierevelt, Simone Priester-Vink, David Ring, Michel Pj van den Bekerom, Lukas Pe Verweij\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.09.053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine (1) which criteria are used to determine return to sport (RTS), (2) the number of patients who are unable to RTS after any superior labral pathophysiology treatment, and (3) which reasons are reported for not returning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was performed across 5 databases, including studies that report rates for RTS after any treatment of superior labral pathophysiology. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Definitions for no return to sport (nRTS) were extracted as reported in the studies. The ranges of nRTS and no return to preinjury level (nRTPL) were summarized. Reasons for nRTS and nRTPL were categorized using a predefined coding scheme.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 45 studies with level of evidence ranging from II to IV, 1,857 patients were involved in sports, 78% (n = 1453) of whom underwent superior labral reattachment, 21% (n = 381) biceps tenodesis, and 9.4% (n = 175) nonoperative treatment. None of the studies provided criteria for RTS, and 2 studies provided criteria for return to preinjury level. The ranges of nRTS and nRTPL varied after superior labral reattachment (0-60%, n = 206; 0-89%, n = 424, respectively), biceps tenodesis (0-25%, n = 43; 3, 8%-48%, n = 78), and nonoperative treatment (11%-75%, n = 62; 18%-100%, n = 78). Reasons for nRTS and nRTPL were related to physical sensations (pain, feeling of instability, discomfort, weakness, lack of motion), psychological factors (fear of reinjury, lack of confidence), personal factors (lifestyle change, social reasons), and injury at another site.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Criteria for determining successful RTS and return to preinjury level after superior labral pathophysiology treatment were not reported by most studies. The nRTS and nRTPL rates varied greatly within and between treatments. The reasons for this unsuccessful return were diverse and related to physical sensations, psychological factors, personal factors, and injury unrelated to treatment.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IV, Systematic review of Level II-IV studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.09.053\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.09.053","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ill-defined Return-to-Sport Criteria and Inconsistent Unsuccessful Return Rates Caused by Various Reasons Not Necessarily Related to Treatment After Superior Labral Treatments: A Systematic Review.
Purpose: To determine (1) which criteria are used to determine return to sport (RTS), (2) the number of patients who are unable to RTS after any superior labral pathophysiology treatment, and (3) which reasons are reported for not returning.
Methods: A systematic review was performed across 5 databases, including studies that report rates for RTS after any treatment of superior labral pathophysiology. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Definitions for no return to sport (nRTS) were extracted as reported in the studies. The ranges of nRTS and no return to preinjury level (nRTPL) were summarized. Reasons for nRTS and nRTPL were categorized using a predefined coding scheme.
Results: Among 45 studies with level of evidence ranging from II to IV, 1,857 patients were involved in sports, 78% (n = 1453) of whom underwent superior labral reattachment, 21% (n = 381) biceps tenodesis, and 9.4% (n = 175) nonoperative treatment. None of the studies provided criteria for RTS, and 2 studies provided criteria for return to preinjury level. The ranges of nRTS and nRTPL varied after superior labral reattachment (0-60%, n = 206; 0-89%, n = 424, respectively), biceps tenodesis (0-25%, n = 43; 3, 8%-48%, n = 78), and nonoperative treatment (11%-75%, n = 62; 18%-100%, n = 78). Reasons for nRTS and nRTPL were related to physical sensations (pain, feeling of instability, discomfort, weakness, lack of motion), psychological factors (fear of reinjury, lack of confidence), personal factors (lifestyle change, social reasons), and injury at another site.
Conclusions: Criteria for determining successful RTS and return to preinjury level after superior labral pathophysiology treatment were not reported by most studies. The nRTS and nRTPL rates varied greatly within and between treatments. The reasons for this unsuccessful return were diverse and related to physical sensations, psychological factors, personal factors, and injury unrelated to treatment.
Level of evidence: Level IV, Systematic review of Level II-IV studies.
期刊介绍：
Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
