지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2023.9
- 수록면
- 296 - 301 (6page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Background: A supervised physiotherapy program (SPP) is a standard regimen after surgical rotator cuff repair (RCR); however, the effect of a home-based exercise program (HEP), as an alternative, on postoperative functional recovery remains unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the functional effects of SPP and HEP after RCR.
Methods: We searched electronic databases including Central, Medline, and Embase in April 2022. The primary outcomes included the Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California Los Angeles shoulder score, and pain score. Secondary outcomes included range of motion, muscle strength, retear rate, and patient satisfaction rate. A meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed on the pooled results to determine the significance.
Results: The initial database search yielded 848 records, five of which met our criteria. Variables at 3 months after surgery were successfully analyzed, including the Constant score (mean difference, −8.51 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −32.72 to 15.69; P=0.49) and pain score (mean difference, 0.02 cm; 95% CI, −2.29 to 2.33; P=0.99). There were no significant differences between the SPP and HEP. Other variables were not analyzed owing to the lack of data.
Conclusions: Our data showed no significant differences between SSP and HEP with regard to the Constant and pain scores at 3 months after RCR. These results suggest that HEP may be an alternative regimen after RCR.
Methods: We searched electronic databases including Central, Medline, and Embase in April 2022. The primary outcomes included the Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California Los Angeles shoulder score, and pain score. Secondary outcomes included range of motion, muscle strength, retear rate, and patient satisfaction rate. A meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed on the pooled results to determine the significance.
Results: The initial database search yielded 848 records, five of which met our criteria. Variables at 3 months after surgery were successfully analyzed, including the Constant score (mean difference, −8.51 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −32.72 to 15.69; P=0.49) and pain score (mean difference, 0.02 cm; 95% CI, −2.29 to 2.33; P=0.99). There were no significant differences between the SPP and HEP. Other variables were not analyzed owing to the lack of data.
Conclusions: Our data showed no significant differences between SSP and HEP with regard to the Constant and pain scores at 3 months after RCR. These results suggest that HEP may be an alternative regimen after RCR.
목차
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0