Purpose: To compare publicly available rehabilitation protocols designated for rotator cuff (RTC) repairs published online by academic residency programs and private practice institutions. Methods: A systematic electronic search using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System (FREIDA) was performed for RTC repair rehabilitation protocols. Private practice programs with published rehabilitation protocols that were discovered during the Google search were also included for review, but no comprehensive search for private practice protocols was performed. The main exclusion criteria consisted of noneEnglish-language protocols and protocols without any of the time-based components in question. Included protocols were assessed independently based on the specified RTC tear size (small [1 cm], medium [1-4 cm], large or massive [5 cm], or no mention of size). Protocols were compared based on the inclusion, exclusion, and timing of certain rehabilitation components. Results: A total of 96 rehabilitation protocols were included for review, from 39 academic institutions and 28 private practice programs. Specific instructions for concomitant biceps tenodesis were included in 26 protocols (27.1%). Of the 96 protocols, 88 (91.7%) did not place restrictions on early postoperative passive range of motion (PROM) of the shoulder. Isolated PROM with restrictions on active range of motion was most commonly recommended for the first 4 or 6 weeks postoperatively (80.2%). Use of a sling or immobilizer was most frequently recommended for the first 4 or 6 weeks postoperatively (78.1%). Wide variation was noted in recommendations for returning to resistance strengthening, with the highest incidence being 27 protocols recommending returning at 12 weeks (28.1%); this further varied based on the size of the tear. A total of 21 protocols (21.9%) recommended the use of cryotherapy postoperatively. Conclusions: Although certain rehabilitation components were common, such as duration of PROM and sling or immobilizer use, a large degree of variation remains among published rehabilitation protocols after RTC repair, and this variability is still seen even when subdividing by the size or severity of the RTC tear. Clinical Relevance: Rehabilitation after RTC repair is crucial to patient outcomes. This study summarizes the variability among online rehabilitation protocols for RTC repair in the United States and emphasizes the importance of appropriate rehabilitation after RTC surgery.

Background: The glenohumeral joint is one of the most frequently dislocated joints in the body, particularly in young, active adults. Purpose: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare outcomes between anterior versus posterior shoulder instability. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE databases (from inception to September 2019) according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were included if they were published in the English language, contained outcomes after anterior or posterior shoulder instability, had at least 1 year of follow-up, and included arthroscopic soft tissue labral repair of either anterior or posterior instability. Outcomes including return-to-sport (RTS) rate, postoperative instability rate, and pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were recorded and analyzed. Results: Overall, 39 studies were included (2077 patients; 1716 male patients and 361 female patients). Patients with anterior instability had a mean age of 23.45 ± 5.40 years (range, 11-72 years), while patients with posterior instability had a mean age of 23.08 ± 8.41 years (range, 13-61 years). The percentage of male patients with anterior instability was significantly higher than that of female patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04-1.77; P = .021). Compared with patients with posterior instability, those with anterior instability were significantly more likely to RTS (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.76-3.04; P < .001), and they were significantly more likely to have postoperative instability (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.07-2.23; P = .018). Patients with anterior instability also had significantly higher ASES scores than those with posterior instability (difference in means, 6.74; 95% CI, 4.71-8.77; P < .001). There were no significant differences found in postoperative complications between the anterior group (11 complications; 1.8%) and the posterior group (3 complications; 1.6%) (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.29-6.30; P = .999). Conclusion: Patients with anterior shoulder instability had higher RTS rates but were more likely to have postoperative instability compared with posterior instability patients. Overall, male patients were significantly more likely to have anterior shoulder instability, while female patients were significantly more likely to have posterior shoulder instability.

Introduction. Ankle sprains are one of the most common athletic injuries. If a patient fails to improve through conservative management, surgery is an option to restore ankle stability. The purpose of this study was to analyze and assess the variability across different rehabilitation protocols for patients undergoing either lateral ankle ligament repair, reconstruction, and suture tape augmentation. Methods. Using a web-based search for published rehabilitation protocols after lateral ankle ligament repair, reconstruction, and suture tape augmentation, a total of 26 protocols were found. Inclusion criteria were protocols for post-operative care after an ankle ligament surgery (repair, reconstruction, or suture tape augmentation). Protocols for multi-ligament surgeries and non-operative care were excluded. A scoring rubric was created to analyze different inclusion, exclusion, and timing of protocols such as weight-bearing, range of motion (ROM), immobilization with brace, single leg exercises, return to running, and return to sport (RTS). Protocols inclusion of different recommendations was recorded along with the time frame that activities were suggested in each protocol. Results. Twenty-six protocols were analyzed. There was variability across rehabilitation protocols for lateral ankle ligament operative patients especially in the type of immobilizing brace, time to partial and full weigh bearing, time to plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, eversion and inversion movements of the ankle, and return to single leg exercise and running. For repair and reconstruction, none of these categories had greater than 60% agreement between protocols. All (12/12) repair, internal brace, and unspecified protocols and 86% (12/14) of reconstruction protocols recommended no ROM immediately postoperatively. Eighty-six percent (6/7) of repair and 78% (11/14) of reconstruction protocols recommended no weight-bearing immediately after surgery, making post-operative ROM and weight-bearing status the most consistent aspects across protocols. Five protocols allowed post-operative weight-bearing in a cast to keep ROM restricted. Sixty-six percent (2/3) of suture tape augmentation protocols allowed full weight-bearing immediately post-operatively. Suture tape augmentation protocols generally allowed rehabilitation to occur on a quicker time-line with full weight-bearing by week 4-6 in 100% (3/3) of protocols and full ROM by week 8-10 in 66% (2/3) protocols. RTS was consistent in repair protocols (100% at week 12-16) but varied more in reconstruction. Conclusion. There is significant variability in the post-operative protocols after surgery for ankle instability. ROM was highly variable across protocols and did not always match-up with supporting literature for early mobilization of the ankle. Return to sport was most likely to correlate between protocols and the literature. Weight-bearing was consistent between most protocols but requires further research to determine the best practice. Overall, the variability between programs demonstrated the need for standardization of rehabilitation protocols.

Background: The glenoid track (GT) concept illustrates how the degree of glenoid bone loss and humeral bone loss in the glenohumeral joint can guide further treatment in a patient with anterior instability. The importance of determining which lesions are at risk for recurrent instability involves imaging of the glenohumeral joint, but no studies have determined which type of imaging is the most appropriate. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to determine the validity and accuracy of different imaging modalities for measuring the GT in shoulders with recurrent anterior instability. We hypothesized that 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) would be the most accurate imaging technique. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using PubMed, Scopus, Medline, and Cochrane libraries between database inception and July 2019. We included all clinical trials or cadaveric studies that evaluated imaging modalities for assessing the GT. Results: A total of 13 studies were included in this review: 1 study using 2-dimensional CT, 6 studies using 3D-CT, 4 studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 1 study using magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA)/MRI, and 1 study combining CT and MRI. The mean sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for 2D-CT was 92%, 100%, and 96%, respectively. For MRI, the means were 72.2%, 87.9%, and 84.2%, respectively. No papers included 3D-CT metrics. The mean intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for intraobserver reliability were 0.9046 for 3D-CT and 0.867 for MRI. ICCs for interobserver reliability were 0.8164, 0.8845, and 0.43 for 3D-CT, MRI, and MRA/MRI, respectively. Conclusion: There is evidence to support the use of both CT and MRI imaging modalities in assessing the GT. In addition, few studies have compared radiographic measurements with a gold standard, and even fewer have looked at the GT concept as a predictor of outcomes. Thus, future studies are needed to further evaluate which imaging modality is the most accurate to assess the GT.

Purpose: To compare and contrast the various rehabilitation protocols for medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction and MPFL reconstruction plus tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) published online by academic orthopaedic surgery residency programs and private practice institutions throughout the United States. Methods: We performed a systematic electronic search of MPFL reconstruction rehabilitation protocols in academic orthopaedic surgery residency programs in the United States using Google's search engine (www.google.com) based on the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System (FREIDA). Private practice organizations publishing MPFL reconstruction or MPFL reconstructioneTTO rehabilitation protocols that were found on the first page of search results were also included, but no comprehensive search for private practice protocols was performed. Protocols specifying an MPFL reconstruction with TTO were included for separate review because of altered weight-bearing status postoperatively. A list of comparative criteria was created to assess the protocols for the presence and timing of the various rehabilitation components. Results: From the list of 189 U.S. academic residency programs, as well as additional private practice protocols found in the Google search, 38 protocols were included for review (31 protocols for isolated MPFL reconstruction and 7 protocols for MPFL reconstruction plus TTO). A return to full range of motion by week 6 was recommended by 15 (48.4%) of the isolated MPFL reconstruction protocols and 6 (85.7%) of the MPFL reconstructioneTTO protocols. Six weeks of knee brace wear was recommended by 13 isolated MPFL reconstruction protocols (43.3%) and 4 MPFL reconstructioneTTO protocols (57.1%). Moreover, 6 isolated MPFL reconstruction protocols (19.4%) and 3 MPFL reconstructioneTTO protocols (42.9%) recommended use of a patellar stabilizing brace postoperatively. Conclusions: There is substantial variability among rehabilitation protocols after MPFL reconstruction, as well as MPFL reconstruction plus TTO, including postoperative range of motion, weight-bearing status, and time until return to sport. Furthermore, many online protocols from academic orthopaedic surgery residency programs and private practices in the United States fail to mention several of these parameters, most notably functional testing to allow patients to return to sport. Clinical Relevance: Proper rehabilitation after MPFL reconstruction with or without TTO is an important factor to a patient's postoperative outcome. This study outlines the variability in online rehabilitation protocols after MPFL reconstruction with or without TTO published online by academic residency programs and private practice institutions.