Background: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) note “strong” evidence that early and delayed mobilization protocols after small to medium arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs achieve similar rotator cuff healing rates. Purpose: We utilized the reverse fragility index (RFI) to assess the fragility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting no statistically significant difference in tendon re-tear rates after rotator cuff repair in those undergoing early versus delayed rehabilitation. Methods: Randomized controlled trials used in the most recent AAOS CPGs on the timing of postoperative mobilization after arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs were analyzed. Only RCTs with a reported P value ≥ .05 were included. The RFI at a threshold of P < .05 was calculated for each study. The reverse fragility quotient (RFQ) was calculated by dividing the RFI by the study sample size. Results: In 6 clinical trials with a total of 542 patients, the number of tendon re-tear events was 48. The median RFI at the P < .05 threshold was 4 (range: 3.25–4.75), and the median RFQ was .05 (range: 0.03–0.08). The median loss to follow-up was 6 patients. Of the 6 studies investigated, 3 reported a loss to follow-up greater than their respective RFI. Conclusion: The equivalence in rotator cuff repair healing rates associated with early and delayed mobilization protocols rests on fragile studies, as their statistical non-significance can be reversed by changing the outcome status of only a handful of patients. Consideration should be given to the routine reporting of RFI in clinical practice guidelines including RCTs with statistically non-significant results.
AklEABrielMYouJJ, et al. Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review. BMJ. 2012;344:e2809. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2809.
BishopJKleppsSLoIKBirdJGladstoneJNFlatowEL.Cuff integrity after arthroscopic versus open rotator cuff repair: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(3):290–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2005.09.017.
6.
ChangKVHungCYHanDSChenWSWangTGChienKL.Early versus delayed passive range of motion exercise for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(5):1265–1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514544698.
7.
ChonaDVLakomkinNLottA, et al. The timing of retears after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(11):2054–2059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.07.015.
8.
ConsonniDBertazziPA.Health significance and statistical uncertainty. The value of P-value. Med Lav. 2017;108(5):327–331. https://doi.org/10.23749/mdl.v108i5.6603.
9.
CuffDJPupelloDR.Prospective randomized study of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using an early versus delayed postoperative physical therapy protocol. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1450–1455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.025.
10.
De RooPJMuermansSMaroyMLindenPVan den DaelenL.Passive mobilization after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is not detrimental in the early postoperative period. Acta Orthop Belg. 2015;81(3):485–492.
11.
DuzgunIBaltaciGTurgutEAtayOA.Effects of slow and accelerated rehabilitation protocols on range of motion after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2014;48(6):642–648. https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2014.13.0125.
12.
EhlersCBCurleyAJFacklerNPMinhasAChangES.The statistical fragility of hamstring versus patellar tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of comparative studies. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(10):2827–2833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546520969973.
13.
EhlersCBCurleyAJFacklerNP, et al. The statistical fragility of single-bundle vs double-bundle autografts for ACL reconstruction: a systematic review of comparative studies. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(12):23259671211064626. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671211064626.
14.
EvaniewNFilesCSmithC, et al. The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in spine surgery: a systematic survey. Spine J. 2015;15(10):2188–2197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.06.004.
15.
FreimanJAChalmersTCSmithHJrKueblerRR.The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 “negative” trials. N Engl J Med. 1978;299(13):690–694. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197809282991304.
16.
GalatzLMBallCMTeefeySAMiddletonWDYamaguchiK.The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(2):219–224. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200402000-00002.
17.
IijimaYMatsukiKHoshikaS, et al. Relationship between postoperative retear and preoperative fatty degeneration in large and massive rotator cuff tears: quantitative analysis using T2 mapping. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(8):1562–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.04.036.
18.
KaneLTLazarusMDNamdariSSeitzALAbboudJA.Comparing expert opinion within the care team regarding postoperative rehabilitation protocol following rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;29(9):e330–e337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.01.097.
19.
KeenerJDGalatzLMStobbs-CucchiGPattonRYamaguchiK.Rehabilitation following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized trial of immobilization compared with early motion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(1):11–19. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00034.
20.
KhanMSFonarowGCFriedeT, et al. Application of the reverse fragility index to statistically nonsignificant randomized clinical trial results. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(8):e2012469. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12469.
21.
KimSJJungMLeeJHKimCChunYM. Arthroscopic repair of anterosuperior rotator cuff tears: in-continuity technique vs. disruption of subscapularis-supraspinatus tear margin: comparison of clinical outcomes and structural integrity between the two techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(24):2056–2061. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00293.
22.
KohKHLimTKShonMSParkYELeeSWYooJC.Effect of immobilization without passive exercise after rotator cuff repair: randomized clinical trial comparing four and eight weeks of immobilization. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(6):e44. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01741.
23.
KyriakidesPWSchultzBJEgolKLeuchtP.The fragility and reverse fragility indices of proximal humerus fracture randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022;48:4545–4552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-021-01684-2.
LiSSunHLuoX, et al. The clinical effect of rehabilitation following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a meta-analysis of early versus delayed passive motion. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(2):e9625. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009625.
26.
LiemDBartlCLichtenbergSMagoschPHabermeyerP.Clinical outcome and tendon integrity of arthroscopic versus mini-open supraspinatus tendon repair: a magnetic resonance imaging-controlled matched-pair analysis. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(5):514–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2006.12.028.
27.
LittlewoodCMazuquinBMoffattMBatemanM.Rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair: a survey of current practice (2020). Musculoskeletal Care. 2021;19(2):165–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1514.
28.
LongoUGCarnevaleAPiergentiliI, et al. Retear rates after rotator cuff surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):749. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04634-6.
29.
LongoUGRizzelloGPetrilloSLoppiniMMaffulliNDenaroV.Conservative rehabilitation provides superior clinical results compared to early aggressive rehabilitation for rotator cuff repair: a retrospective comparative study. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019;55(8):402. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina55080402.
30.
MazuquinBMoffattMGillP, et al. Effectiveness of early versus delayed rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair: systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0252137. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252137.
31.
MazzoccaADArcieroRASheaKP, et al. The effect of early range of motion on quality of life, clinical outcome, and repair integrity after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2017;33(6):1138–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2016.10.017.
32.
McCormickKLTedescoLJSwindellHWForresterLAJobinCMLevineWN.Statistical fragility of randomized clinical trials in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021;30(8):1787–1793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.10.028.
ParisienRLEhlersCCusanoATornettaPIIILiXWangD.The statistical fragility of platelet-rich plasma in rotator cuff surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(12):3437–3442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546521989976.
35.
ParisienRLTrofaDPDasheJ, et al. Statistical fragility and the role of P values in the sports medicine literature. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019;27(7):e324–e329. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00636.
36.
PocockSJMcMurrayJJCollierTJ.Making sense of statistics in clinical trial reports: part 1 of a 4-Part series on statistics for clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(22):2536–2549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.014.
37.
RibohJCGarriguesGE.Early passive motion versus immobilization after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(8):997–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.03.012.
SaltzmanBMZukeWAGoB, et al. Does early motion lead to a higher failure rate or better outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(9):1681–1691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.04.004.
40.
ShamsudinALamPHPetersKRubenisIHackettLMurrellGA.Revision versus primary arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a 2-year analysis of outcomes in 360 patients. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(3):557–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514560729.
41.
TashjianRZHollinsAMKimHM, et al. Factors affecting healing rates after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(12):2435–2442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546510382835.
42.
TignanelliCJNapolitanoLM.The fragility index in randomized clinical trials as a means of optimizing patient care. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(1):74–79. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.4318.
43.
WalshMDevereauxPJSackettDL.Clinician trialist rounds: 28. When RCT participants are lost to follow-up. Part 1: why even a few can matter. Clin Trials. 2015;12(5):537–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774515597702.
44.
WalshMSrinathanSKMcAuleyDF, et al. The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a fragility index. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(6):622–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.019.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
