Patrick J Denard1, Alexandre Lädermann2. 1. Southern Oregon Orthopedics, Medford, OR, USA; Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. Electronic address: pjdenard@gmail.com. 2. Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, La Tour Hospital, Meyrin, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to compare immediate with delayed range of motion (ROM) following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The hypothesis was that ROM gains would occur earlier with immediate motion but that there would be no difference in ultimate ROM or functional outcome. METHODS:Sixty patients were randomized to immediate motion (IM) or delayed motion (DM) following TSA. A lesser tuberosity osteotomy was performed in all cases. ROM and functional outcome were compared at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: Compared with preoperative values, in the IM group, forward flexion improved from 106° to 141° at 1 year postoperatively, external rotation improved from 21° to 65°, and internal rotation improved by 2 spinal levels (P < .05). In the DM group, forward flexion improved from 104° to 144°, external rotation improved from 20° to 53°, and internal rotation improved by 4 spinal levels (P < .05). The 2 groups regained motion differently, but there were no significant differences in final ROM or functional outcome scores between the 2 groups. The IM group had higher functional outcome scores initially, but by 3 months postoperatively, there was no difference. The rate of osteotomy healing was 81% in the IM group compared with 96% in the DM group (P = .101). CONCLUSION: Immediate ROM provides a more rapid return of function compared with a delayed ROM protocol following TSA. However, there are no differences in ultimate ROM or functional outcome between the 2 groups. Moreover, immediate ROM may lower the healing rate of a lesser tuberosity osteotomy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to compare immediate with delayed range of motion (ROM) following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The hypothesis was that ROM gains would occur earlier with immediate motion but that there would be no difference in ultimate ROM or functional outcome. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomized to immediate motion (IM) or delayed motion (DM) following TSA. A lesser tuberosity osteotomy was performed in all cases. ROM and functional outcome were compared at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: Compared with preoperative values, in the IM group, forward flexion improved from 106° to 141° at 1 year postoperatively, external rotation improved from 21° to 65°, and internal rotation improved by 2 spinal levels (P < .05). In the DM group, forward flexion improved from 104° to 144°, external rotation improved from 20° to 53°, and internal rotation improved by 4 spinal levels (P < .05). The 2 groups regained motion differently, but there were no significant differences in final ROM or functional outcome scores between the 2 groups. The IM group had higher functional outcome scores initially, but by 3 months postoperatively, there was no difference. The rate of osteotomy healing was 81% in the IM group compared with 96% in the DM group (P = .101). CONCLUSION: Immediate ROM provides a more rapid return of function compared with a delayed ROM protocol following TSA. However, there are no differences in ultimate ROM or functional outcome between the 2 groups. Moreover, immediate ROM may lower the healing rate of a lesser tuberosity osteotomy.
Authors: June S Kennedy; Grant E Garrigues; Federico Pozzi; Matthew J Zens; Bryce Gaunt; Brian Phillips; Ashim Bakshi; Angela R Tate Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Alexandre Lädermann; Patrick Joel Denard; Jérome Tirefort; Philippe Collin; Alexandra Nowak; Adrien Jean-Pierre Schwitzguebel Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Nick R Johnson; David P Trofa; Bryan M Saltzman; Katherine R Muña; Shadley C Schiffern; Nady Hamid Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Date: 2020-02-10
Authors: Helen Razmjou; Varda van Osnabrugge; Mark Anunciacion; Andrea Nunn; Darren Drosdowech; Ania Roszkowski; Analia Szafirowicz; Dragana Boljanovic; Amy Wainwright; Diane Nam Journal: J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast Date: 2021-07-01
Authors: June S Kennedy; Emily K Reinke; Lisa G M Friedman; Chad Cook; Brian Forsythe; Robert Gillespie; Armodios Hatzidakis; Andrew Jawa; Peter Johnston; Sameer Nagda; Gregory Nicholson; Benjamin Sears; Brent Wiesel; Grant E Garrigues; Christopher Hagen; Insup Hong; Marcella Roach; Natasha Jones; Kuhan Mahendraraj; Evan Michaelson; Jackie Bader; Libby Mauter; Sunita Mengers; Nellie Renko; John Strony; Paul Hart; Elle Steele; Amanda Naylor; Jaina Gaudette; Katherine Sprengel Journal: Arch Physiother Date: 2021-12-10
Authors: Tom van Essen; Anke Kornuijt; Lieke Maria Anna de Vries; Remco Stokman; Walter van der Weegen; Rob Bogie; Robert Jan Hillen; D A van Kampen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 2.692