Rehabilitation Variability After Elbow Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction.

physical therapy reconstruction rehabilitation ulnar collateral ligament

Journal

Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Historique:
entrez: 3 4 2019
pubmed: 3 4 2019
medline: 3 4 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Investigations specifically delineating the safest and most efficacious components of physical therapy after ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction of the elbow are lacking. As such, while a number of recommendations regarding postoperative therapy have been published, no validated rehabilitation guidelines currently exist. To assess the variability of rehabilitation protocols utilized by orthopaedic residency programs in the United States (US) and those described in the scientific literature. Cross-sectional study. Online UCL reconstruction rehabilitation protocols from US orthopaedic programs and from the scientific literature were reviewed. A comprehensive scoring rubric was developed to assess each protocol for the presence of various rehabilitation components as well as the timing of their introduction. Overall, 22 protocols (14%) from 155 US Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) orthopaedic programs and 8 protocols published in the scientific literature detailing UCL reconstruction postoperative rehabilitation were identified and reviewed. After reconstruction, the majority of ERAS and review article protocols (77% and 88%, respectively) advised immediate splinting at 90° of elbow flexion. The mean time to splint discontinuation across all protocols was 2.0 weeks (range, 1-3 weeks). There was considerable variability in elbow range of motion recommendations; however, most protocols detailed goals for full extension and full flexion (>130°) at a mean 5.3 weeks (range, 4-6 weeks) and 5.5 weeks (range, 4-6 weeks), respectively. Significant diversity in the inclusion and timing of strengthening, proprioceptive, and throwing exercises was also apparent. Thirteen ERAS (59%) and 7 review article (88%) protocols specifically mentioned return to competition as an endpoint. ERAS protocols permitted return to competition significantly earlier than review article protocols (29.6 vs 39.0 weeks, respectively; There is notable variability in both the composition and timing of rehabilitation components across a small number of protocols available online. While our understanding of postoperative rehabilitation for UCL reconstruction evolves, outcome-based studies focused on identifying clinically beneficial modalities and metrics are necessary to enable meaningful standardization.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Investigations specifically delineating the safest and most efficacious components of physical therapy after ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction of the elbow are lacking. As such, while a number of recommendations regarding postoperative therapy have been published, no validated rehabilitation guidelines currently exist.
PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
To assess the variability of rehabilitation protocols utilized by orthopaedic residency programs in the United States (US) and those described in the scientific literature.
STUDY DESIGN METHODS
Cross-sectional study.
METHODS METHODS
Online UCL reconstruction rehabilitation protocols from US orthopaedic programs and from the scientific literature were reviewed. A comprehensive scoring rubric was developed to assess each protocol for the presence of various rehabilitation components as well as the timing of their introduction.
RESULTS RESULTS
Overall, 22 protocols (14%) from 155 US Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) orthopaedic programs and 8 protocols published in the scientific literature detailing UCL reconstruction postoperative rehabilitation were identified and reviewed. After reconstruction, the majority of ERAS and review article protocols (77% and 88%, respectively) advised immediate splinting at 90° of elbow flexion. The mean time to splint discontinuation across all protocols was 2.0 weeks (range, 1-3 weeks). There was considerable variability in elbow range of motion recommendations; however, most protocols detailed goals for full extension and full flexion (>130°) at a mean 5.3 weeks (range, 4-6 weeks) and 5.5 weeks (range, 4-6 weeks), respectively. Significant diversity in the inclusion and timing of strengthening, proprioceptive, and throwing exercises was also apparent. Thirteen ERAS (59%) and 7 review article (88%) protocols specifically mentioned return to competition as an endpoint. ERAS protocols permitted return to competition significantly earlier than review article protocols (29.6 vs 39.0 weeks, respectively;
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
There is notable variability in both the composition and timing of rehabilitation components across a small number of protocols available online. While our understanding of postoperative rehabilitation for UCL reconstruction evolves, outcome-based studies focused on identifying clinically beneficial modalities and metrics are necessary to enable meaningful standardization.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30937318
doi: 10.1177/2325967119833363
pii: 10.1177_2325967119833363
pmc: PMC6434436
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

2325967119833363

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: E.C.M. has received educational support from Pinnacle and Smith & Nephew, consulting fees from Smith & Nephew, and hospitality payments from Smith & Nephew and Stryker. C.S.A. has received consulting fees from Arthrex, speaking fees from Arthrex, royalties from Arthrex, and hospitality payments from DePuy. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Références

Clin Sports Med. 2004 Oct;23(4):765-801, xii
pubmed: 15474234
Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Oct;63(1-2):24-8
pubmed: 16406474
Am J Sports Med. 2006 Dec;34(12):1926-32
pubmed: 16902233
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992 Jan;74(1):67-83
pubmed: 1734015
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Jun;36(6):1193-205
pubmed: 18490476
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1991;14(3):100-5
pubmed: 18796819
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Nov 17;92(16):2643-52
pubmed: 21084575
Sports Health. 2009 Jul;1(4):301-13
pubmed: 23015887
J Man Manip Ther. 2012 Nov;20(4):192-200
pubmed: 24179327
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Mar;44(3):729-34
pubmed: 26797699
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016 Mar;24(3):135-49
pubmed: 26890035
Arthroscopy. 2016 Aug;32(8):1612-21
pubmed: 27032604
World J Orthop. 2016 Apr 18;7(4):229-43
pubmed: 27114930
Orthop J Sports Med. 2017 Jan 25;5(1):2325967116682211
pubmed: 28203598
Foot Ankle Spec. 2019 Feb;12(1):16-24
pubmed: 29310456
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Feb 23;6(2):2325967118755116
pubmed: 29511700
Phys Sportsmed. 2018 Sep;46(3):355-360
pubmed: 29571265
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986 Oct;68(8):1158-63
pubmed: 3771597
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1993 Jun;17(6):305-17
pubmed: 8343790

Auteurs

Harry M Lightsey (HM)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

David P Trofa (DP)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

Julian J Sonnenfeld (JJ)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

Hasani W Swindell (HW)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

Eric C Makhni (EC)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

Christopher S Ahmad (CS)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

Classifications MeSH