4.3 Review

Systematic review of rotator cuff tears in workers' compensation patients

Journal

OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE-OXFORD
Volume 61, Issue 8, Pages 556-561

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqr068

Keywords

Evidence-based practice; musculoskeletal; occupational rehabilitation; physiotherapy; quality of life; rehabilitation; upper limb disorder

Funding

  1. Workers Compensation Board of Alberta
  2. Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To consolidate the existing literature on full-thickness RC tears among WC patients. Subject, shoulder and injury characteristics were examined to determine if and how WC recipients may differ from their non-compensable counterparts. Methods A systematic search (databases, clinical practice guideline web resources, conference proceedings and reference lists) revealed 450 abstracts. Two blinded reviewers independently assessed abstracts for inclusion. Sixty abstracts were subsequently included in a blinded full manuscript review. Seventeen of these manuscripts (3.8% of sample; 11 intervention and 6 determinant) were included in the present review. Results Previous studies demonstrate that operative interventions are appropriate for full-thickness RC tears as substantial gains in range of motion, strength and quality of life were witnessed within the first post-operative year. Non-operative interventions, including workplace-based work hardening, physical therapy and the use of an early referral system, were shown to improve outcomes. Conflicting results exist with respect to determinants such as age and sex. Importantly, WC patients had consistently poorer outcomes than non-WC patients. Conclusions Our results show that although WC patients experience substantial benefits from various treatments for full-thickness RC tears, disparities exist between them and their non-WC counterparts. The lack of WC-specific literature limited our results. Larger studies, particularly ones comparing WC patients with their non-compensable counterparts, are crucial to allow for future evidence-based recommendations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available