A systematic review of rehabilitation protocols following surgical repair of the extensor pollicis longus

Hand Therapy ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J Wood ◽  
Mojib Sameem ◽  
Forough Farrokhyar ◽  
Nick Strumas
2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mojib Sameem ◽  
Thomas Wood ◽  
Teegan Ignacy ◽  
Achilleas Thoma ◽  
Nick Strumas

2011 ◽  
Vol 127 (4) ◽  
pp. 1583-1592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Chesney ◽  
Amitabh Chauhan ◽  
Abdullah Kattan ◽  
Forough Farrokhyar ◽  
Achilleas Thoma

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Ioannidou ◽  
J Bosdou ◽  
D Papanikolaou ◽  
D Goulis ◽  
A Lambropoulos ◽  
...  

Abstract Study question Does oral antioxidant supplementation improve sperm quality in infertile men with varicocele who have not undergone surgical repair? Summary answer Oral antioxidant supplementation improves sperm concentration and motility in infertile men with varicocele who have not undergone surgical repair. What is known already: Benefit from oral antioxidant supplementation has been shown in infertile men with varicocele following surgical repair. Similarly, oral antioxidant supplementation has been suggested in infertile men with varicocele who have not undergone surgical repair. However, its effect currently remains controversial. Study design, size, duration A literature search was performed until January 2021 aiming to identify prospective studies evaluating the use of oral antioxidant supplementation alone or in combination in men with varicocele who have not undergone surgical repair. Participants/materials, setting, methods Seven prospective studies were identified, published between 1987 and 2018, including 278 infertile men with varicocele who had not undergone surgical repair. The number of patients included ranged from 20 to 65. Sperm analysis, evaluating sperm concentration, motility and morphology was performed in these studies before and after oral antioxidant supplementation. Meta-analysis of weighted data was performed using random effects model. Results are reported as weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Main results and the role of chance Seven studies were included in the systematic review. Oral antioxidant supplementation was performed by a combination of pentoxifylline, zinc and folic acid (single study), a combination of l-carnitine, fumarate, acetyl-l-carnitine, fructose, CoQ, vitamin C, zinc, folic acid and vitamin B12 (single study), a combination of L-Carnitine, vitamin C, coenzyme Q10, vitamin E, vitamin B9, vitamin B12, zinc , and selenium, l-carnitine (single study), or sole treatment with acetyl-l-carnitine (single study), L-Carnitine (single study), Coenzyme Q10 (single study) or zinc sulfate (single study). For the purpose of meta-analysis, the effect of oral antioxidant supplementation was evaluated after three months of treatment. Oral antioxidant supplementation significantly increased sperm concentration (WMD +5.65x106/ml 95% CI: +1.11 to + 10.12 p = 0.01, random effects model) and motility (WMD +4.30%, 95% CI: +0.86 to + 7.74 p = 0.01, random effects model) in infertile men with varicocele who had not undergone surgical repair. On the other hand, no significance difference was observed in sperm morphology (WMD +3.9%, 95% CI: –0.16 to + 8.04 p = 0.06, random effects model) and volume (WMD +0.53ml, 95% CI: 0.0 to + 1.0 p = 0.052, random effects model). Limitations, reasons for caution The number of relevant trials and that of patients included is small to allow for solid conclusions to be drawn. Moreover, although different oral antioxidants have been administered in infertile who had not undergone surgical repair, subgroup analysis was not feasible. Wider implications of the findings: Currently, limited evidence supports the use of oral antioxidants in the treatment of men with varicocele, who have not undergone surgical repair. Although the benefit in sperm concentration and motility appears to be modest, it might be important regarding achievement of pregnancy in these men. Trial registration number Not applicable


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 243-248
Author(s):  
Christina Hermanns ◽  
Reed Coda ◽  
Sana Cheema ◽  
Matthew Vopat ◽  
Armin Tarakemeh ◽  
...  

Introduction. Rehabilitation after a superior labral anterior posterior (SLAP) repair is an important aspect of patient outcomes, however, no standardized rehabilitation protocol has been defined. The purpose of this paper is to assess the variability of rehabilitation after SLAP repair to understand the need for standardization to improve patient outcomes. Methods. Protocols for SLAP repairs were collected through a search for Academic Orthopedic Programs and a general google search using the terms “[Program Name (if applicable)] SLAP Repair Rehab Protocol”. Protocols were compared by sling, range of motion (ROM), physical therapy, return to sport (RTS), return to throwing, and biceps engagement/ biceps tenodesis recommendations. Protocols for non-operative or generalized shoulders were excluded.  Results. Sixty protocols were included. A total of 61.7% (37/60) recommended a sling for four to six weeks and 90% (54/60) included a full ROM recommendation, but time was variable. There were different exercises recommended, but pendulum swings were recommended by 53% (32/60), submaximal isometrics by 55% (33/60), and scapular strengthening by 65% (39/60). Of the sixty protocols, 33% (20/60) recommended return to sports in 24 weeks and 38.3% (23/60) recommended allowing throwing in 16 weeks. Conclusion. There was variability in protocols for SLAP repair, especially time until full ROM, RTS, and biceps strengthening. Time in sling and scapular strengthening were the least variable. A lack of specificity within protocols in what return to throwing meant for functional ability made it difficult to compare protocols. Considering the large number of Orthopedic programs, a relatively small number had published protocols. Further studies are needed to evaluate a standardized post-operative rehabilitation for SLAP repairs to improve outcomes.


2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 2780-2788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela O’Connor ◽  
Anas A. Minkara ◽  
Robert W. Westermann ◽  
James Rosneck ◽  
T. Sean Lynch

Background: The use of arthroscopic treatment for intra-articular hip pathology has demonstrated improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with a lower rate of complications, reoperation, and patient morbidity as compared with traditional methods. Although the use of this minimally invasive approach has increased in prevalence, no evidence-based return-to-play (RTP) criteria have been developed to ensure an athlete’s preparedness for sporting activities. Purpose: To determine if there exists sufficient evidence in the literature to support an RTP protocol and functional assessment after hip arthroscopy, as well as to assess the mean rate and duration of RTP. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The search terms “hip arthroscopy,” “return to play,” and 10 related terms were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, yielding 263 articles. After screening, 22 articles were included. RTP timeline, rehabilitation protocols, and conditional criteria measures were assessed with previously established criteria. Pooled estimates were calculated for RTP rate and duration, and weighted mean scores were determined for PROs. Results: A total of 1296 patients with 1442 total hips were identified. Although 54.5% (12 of 22) of studies did not provide a guideline for RTP duration after hip arthroscopy, 36.4% (8 of 22) recommended a duration of 4 months, while 9.1% (2 of 22) recommended 3 months. The most frequently described postoperative rehabilitation protocols were weightbearing guidelines (15 studies) and passive motion exercises (9 studies). Only 2 studies satisfied the criteria for a sufficient RTP protocol, and 3 provided a specific replicable test for RTP. The mean RTP duration was 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.1-8.8 months), and the return rate was 84.6% (95% CI, 80.4%-88.8%; P = .008) at a mean ± SD follow-up of 25.8 ± 2.4 months. Mean modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) improved from 63.1 to 84.1 postoperatively (+33.3%), while Non-arthritic Hip Score improved from 61.7 to 86.8 (+40.7%). A lower preoperative mHHS was significantly associated with a higher postoperative improvement ( r = −0.95, P = .0003). Conclusion: Significant variability exists in RTP protocols among institutions owing to a lack of standardization. Despite a high overall rate of RTP and improvement in PROs after hip arthroscopy, the majority of rehabilitation protocols are not evidence based and rely on expert opinion. No validated functional test currently exists to assess RTP.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document