Are Pulley Exercises Initiated 6 Weeks After Rotator Cuff Repair a Safe and Effective Rehabilitative Treatment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few level 1 or 2 evidence studies that examine rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair. Pulleys have been used in postoperative shoulder rehabilitation with the intention of improving range of motion and developing strength. There is a concern that the use of pulleys in rehabilitation of rotator cuff repairs may contribute to excessive scapular motion (scapular substitution) and potentially inferior outcomes. HYPOTHESIS: Rotator cuff repair patients treated with pulley exercises would have increased scapular substitution and inferior patient-determined outcome scores, range of motion, and strength compared with patients treated with an alternative rehabilitation program without pulleys. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A total of 27 patients who underwent rotator cuff repair were randomized to a rehabilitation group that used pulleys initiated 6 weeks postoperatively, and 26 patients followed a rehabilitation protocol without pulleys. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Exclusion criteria were large to massive rotator cuff tears, revision rotator cuff repair, glenohumeral osteoarthritis, adhesive capsulitis, and a symptomatic contralateral shoulder. Outcomes of intervention were patient-determined outcome scores (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index [WORC], American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] Shoulder Score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], Shoulder Activity Level, and Simple Shoulder Test [SST]), range of motion, scapular substitution, and strength. Outcomes were determined at 6, 12, 18, 26, and 52 weeks. A power analysis determined that 22 patients were needed per group to have a power of 0.80, α = 0.05, and effect size of f = 0.5. RESULTS: Both groups had statistically significant improvements in WORC, ASES Shoulder Score, SST, and SANE scores over time after rotator cuff repair (P < .0001). There were no differences between the interventions for WORC (P = .18), ASES Shoulder Score (P = .73), SANE (P = .5), Shoulder Activity Level (P = .39), or SST (P = .36). Both interventions demonstrated improvements in shoulder flexion (P = .002), abduction (P = .0001), external rotation (P = .02), strength (P ≤ .0002), and scapular substitution (P ≤ .07) over time after rotator cuff repair. However, there was no difference in range of motion (P ≥ .26), strength (P ≥ .20), or scapular substitution (P ≥ .17) between interventions. CONCLUSION: A rotator cuff repair rehabilitation program that uses pulleys does not result in inferior outcomes, as determined by patient-determined outcome scores, measurements of scapular substitution, range of motion, and scaption strength. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01819909.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".