4.5 Article

Rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair: A multi-centre pilot & feasibility randomised controlled trial (RaCeR)

Journal

CLINICAL REHABILITATION
Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 829-839

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269215520978859

Keywords

Rehabilitation interventions; randomized controlled trial; physiotherapy; shoulder pain

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit programme [PB-PG-0816-20009]
  2. NIHR Post-Doctoral Fellowship [PDF-2018-11-ST2-005]
  3. NIHR Research Professorship [NIHR-RP-011-015]
  4. NIHR Research Methods Fellowship [NIHR-RM-FI-2017-08-006]
  5. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [PB-PG-0816-20009] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing early patient-directed rehabilitation with standard rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair surgery. Results showed a greater time out of the sling in the early patient-directed rehabilitation group, but also more full-thickness re-tears. Follow-up rates were high in both groups.
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early patient-directed rehabilitation versus standard rehabilitation following surgical repair of the rotator cuff of the shoulder. Design: Two-arm, multi-centre pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial. Setting: Five National Health Service hospitals in England. Participants: Adults (n = 73) with non-traumatic rotator cuff tears scheduled for repair were recruited and randomly allocated remotely prior to surgery. Interventions: Early patient-directed rehabilitation (n = 37); advised to remove their sling as soon as able and move as symptoms allow. Standard rehabilitation (n = 36); sling immobilisation for four weeks. Measures: (1) Randomisation of 20% or more eligible patients. (2) Difference in time out of sling of 40% or more between groups. (3) Follow-up greater than 70%. Results: 73/185 (39%) potentially eligible patients were randomised. Twenty participants were withdrawn, 11 due to not receiving rotator cuff repair. The between-group difference in proportions of participants who exceeded the cut-off of 222.6 hours out of the sling was 50% (80% CI = 29%, 72%), with the early patient-directed rehabilitation group reporting greater time out of sling. 52/73 (71%) and 52/53 (98%) participants were followed-up at 12 weeks when withdrawals were included and excluded respectively. Eighteen full-thickness re-tears were reported (early patient-directed rehabilitation = 7, standard rehabilitation = 11). Five serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: A main randomised controlled trial is feasible but would require allocation of participants following surgery to counter the issue of withdrawal due to not receiving surgery.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available