1
|
Buck TMF, Dahmen J, Tak IJR, Rikken QGH, Otten R, Stufkens SAS, Kerkhoffs GMMJ. Large variation in postoperative rehabilitation protocols following operative treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus: A systematic review and meta-analysis on >200 studies. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2024; 32:334-343. [PMID: 38294080 DOI: 10.1002/ksa.12038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2023] [Revised: 12/08/2023] [Accepted: 12/11/2023] [Indexed: 02/01/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE A treatment-specific rehabilitation protocol and well-defined return-to-play criteria guide clinical decision-making on return to normal function, activity, sports and performance after surgical treatment for osteochondral lesion of the talus (OLT). The optimal rehabilitation protocols in the current literature remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to explore the existing literature on rehabilitation protocols from the early postoperative phase to return to sport onwards after different types of surgical treatment of OLTs. METHODS PubMed, Embase, CDSR, DARE and Central were searched systematically from inception to February 2023 according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. All clinical studies with a description of postoperative rehabilitation criteria after surgical treatment of OLTs were included. The primary outcome of this study is the extent of reportage for each rehabilitation parameter expressed in percentage. The secondary outcome is the reported median time for each parameter in rehabilitation protocols for all different treatment modalities (type of surgery). The median time, expressed as number of weeks, for each parameter was compared between different types of surgery. RESULTS A total of 227 articles were included reporting on 255 different rehabilitation protocols from seven different types of surgery. Weight-bearing instructions were reported in 84%-100% and the use of a cast or walker was prescribed in 27%-100%. Range of motion exercises were described in 54%-100% whereas physical therapy was advised in 21%-67% of the protocols. Any advice on return to sport was described in 0%-67% protocols. A nonparametric analysis of variance showed significant differences between the different surgical treatment modalities for the following parameters between the treatment groups: time to full weight-bearing (p < 0.0003) and return to high impact level of sports (p < 0.0003). Subjective or objective criteria for progression during rehabilitation were reported in only 24% of the studies. CONCLUSION An in-depth exploration of the current literature showed substantial variation in postoperative rehabilitation guidelines with an associated underreporting of the most important rehabilitation parameters in postoperative protocols after surgical treatment of OLTs. Furthermore, nearly all rehabilitation protocols were constructed according to a time-based approach. Only one out of four reported either objective or subjective criteria. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, systematic review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tristan M F Buck
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Programs Sports and Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Academic Center for Evidence-based Sports Medicine (ACES), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Collaboration on Health and Safety in Sports (ACHSS), IOC Research Centre, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jari Dahmen
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Programs Sports and Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Academic Center for Evidence-based Sports Medicine (ACES), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Collaboration on Health and Safety in Sports (ACHSS), IOC Research Centre, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Igor J R Tak
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Programs Sports and Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Academic Center for Evidence-based Sports Medicine (ACES), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Collaboration on Health and Safety in Sports (ACHSS), IOC Research Centre, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Physiotherapy Utrecht Oost - Sports Rehabilitation and Manual Therapy, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Quinten G H Rikken
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Programs Sports and Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Academic Center for Evidence-based Sports Medicine (ACES), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Collaboration on Health and Safety in Sports (ACHSS), IOC Research Centre, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Roald Otten
- Fitaal Heerenveen - Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Heerenveen, The Netherlands
| | - Sjoerd A S Stufkens
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Programs Sports and Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Academic Center for Evidence-based Sports Medicine (ACES), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Collaboration on Health and Safety in Sports (ACHSS), IOC Research Centre, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gino M M J Kerkhoffs
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Programs Sports and Musculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Academic Center for Evidence-based Sports Medicine (ACES), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Collaboration on Health and Safety in Sports (ACHSS), IOC Research Centre, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Criteria-Based Return to Sport Decision-Making Following Lateral Ankle Sprain Injury: a Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis. Sports Med 2020; 49:601-619. [PMID: 30747379 DOI: 10.1007/s40279-019-01071-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic review was to identify prospective studies that used a criteria-based return to sport (RTS) decision-making process for patients with lateral ankle sprain (LAS) injury. DESIGN Systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES The PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, PEDro, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus (EBSCO), ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases were searched to 23 November 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES Studies were included if they prospectively applied a criteria-based RTS decision-making process for patients with LAS injury, but were excluded if they merely gathered outcome measures at the RTS time point. Studies were also excluded if patients were recovering from ankle fracture, high ankle sprain, medial ankle sprain, chronic ankle instability or complex ankle injury. RESULTS No studies were identified that used a criteria-based RTS decision-making process for patients with LAS injury. We were unable to conduct a quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis, therefore we provide a narrative synthesis of relevant questionnaires, as well as clinical and functional assessments commonly used in studies retrieved in the search. CONCLUSION There are currently no published evidence-based criteria to inform RTS decisions for patients with an LAS injury. Based on our narrative synthesis, we propose a number of variables that could be used to develop a criteria-based RTS decision paradigm. Future research should aim to reach consensus on these variables and apply them to actual RTS decisions within prospective study designs. Furthermore, we suggest that complex systems theory and the RTS continuum could be used to inform the development of an RTS decision-making paradigm for athletes with LAS injury.
Collapse
|
4
|
Generation of Domains for the Equine Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Outcome Score: Development by Expert Consensus. Animals (Basel) 2020; 10:ani10020203. [PMID: 31991716 PMCID: PMC7070405 DOI: 10.3390/ani10020203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2019] [Revised: 01/20/2020] [Accepted: 01/23/2020] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Within rehabilitation, measurements taken before, during and after treatments are used to judge patient progress and the effectiveness of prescribed treatments. To know which measurements to use for a given health condition, practitioners must have knowledge of what should be measured, which measurement tools are available and accurate, alongside what they intend to measure. Composite outcome measures (OMs) are tools which use grouped measurement tests to monitor patient progress; they have been tested for a variety of human and canine conditions but none have been designed or tested for use in physical rehabilitation in horses. This study asked leading equine veterinarians, physiotherapists and researchers which measures should be included in an OM for use in the rehabilitation of horses. Using a process to evaluate agreement, ten areas of measurement were included in the final model: lameness, pain at rest, pain during exercise, behaviour during exercise, muscular symmetry, performance/functional capacity, behaviour at rest, palpation, balance and proprioception. Existing reliable tests used to measure these areas were evaluated and potential new measures discussed and now should be taken forward to testing as a composite outcome score to see if they are effective in measuring effectiveness of treatment. Abstract Outcome measures (OMs) are a requirement of professional practice standards in human and canine physiotherapy practice for measurement of health status. Measures such as pain and functional capacity of specific regions are used to track treatment impact and can be used to develop optimal management strategies. To achieve comparable patient care in equine physiotherapy, OMs must be incorporated into practice; however, no reliable and valid OMs exist for equine rehabilitation. This study utilised the experience and opinion of a panel of experts working in the equine rehabilitation sphere to gain consensus on the core areas (domains) to be included in a model, to lead to an OM scale for horses undergoing rehabilitation. The Delphi method and content validity ratio testing was used to determine agreement with domains reaching the critical value required for inclusion. The expert panel agreed on ten domains to be included in the OM scale: lameness, pain at rest, pain during exercise, behaviour during exercise, muscular symmetry, performance/functional capacity, behaviour at rest, palpation, balance and proprioception. An OM with these domains would provide a holistic objective assessment tool which could be used by equine rehabilitation professionals in clinical practice.
Collapse
|