Shoulder Rehabilitation Exercises With Kinematic Biofeedback After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: Protocol for a New Integrated Rehabilitation Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recovery of scapular and humeral physiological kinematic parameters, as well as the sensorimotor control of movement, plays a primary role in the rehabilitation process after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. A highly customized rehabilitation approach is required to achieve this aim. Biofeedback can be a useful tool, but there is poor evidence of its application in the rehabilitation after arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to outline an innovative exercise-based rehabilitation program exploiting visual biofeedback for the recovery of patients arthroscopically treated for rotator cuff repair. METHODS: For establishment of the innovative program, a multidisciplinary team involving experts in shoulder surgery, rehabilitation medicine, physical therapy, and biomedical and clinical engineering was formed. Starting from a conventional rehabilitation program, the team selected a set of exercises to be integrated with a biofeedback tool, named the INAIL (National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work) Shoulder and Elbow Outpatient program (ISEO program). ISEO is a motion analysis system based on inertial wearable sensors positioned over the thorax, scapula, humerus, and forearm. ISEO can return a visual biofeedback of humerus and scapula angles over time or of the scapula-humeral coordination, with possible overlap of patient-specific or asymptomatic reference values. A set of 12 progressive exercises was defined, divided into four groups based on humerus and scapula movements. Each group comprises 2-4 of the 12 exercises with an increasing level of complexity. Exercises can require the use of a ball, stick, rubber band, and/or towel. For each exercise, we present the starting position of the patient, the modality of execution, and the target position, together with notes about the critical factors to observe. The type of visual biofeedback to adopt is specified, such as the coordination between angles or the variation of a single angle over time. To guide the therapist in customizing the patient's rehabilitation program, a list of operative guidelines is provided. RESULTS: We describe various applications of the ISEO exercise program in terms of frequency and intensity. CONCLUSIONS: An innovative rehabilitation program to restore scapular and humeral kinematics after rotator cuff repair based on kinematic biofeedback is presented. Biofeedback is expected to increase patient awareness and self-correction under therapist supervision. Randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate the potential effect of the exercise-based biofeedback in comparison with conventional rehabilitation programs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35757.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".