Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

This systematic scoping review aimed to describe the content of post-operative rehabilitation programmes, and outcome measures selection following stabilisation surgery for traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (TASD).

Methods

An electronic search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED was conducted (2000–2021). Any cohort or clinical trial of patients receiving post-operative TASD rehabilitation were included. Study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal were undertaken by two independent reviewers.

Results

Twelve studies including fourteen treatment programmes were eligible. Period of post-operative immobilisation ranged from 1 day to 6 weeks, with exercise introduced between 1 and 7 weeks. Strengthening exercises were introduced between 1 and 12 weeks. Two studies described “accelerated” rehabilitation programmes, differing in immobilisation period and exercise milestones. No increased recurrence was reported in professional footballers. Two studies compared rehabilitation programmes, one not randomised, the other 18 years old. There was variability in selected outcomes measures, with only 4 studies using a common measure.

Discussion

There is minimal evidence to guide post-operative rehabilitation, variability in immobilisation periods and when exercise is introduced. There is no consensus on the definition of accelerated rehabilitation, or outcome measure selection. Clinical consensus of standardised terminology and stages of rehabilitation is required prior to efficacy studies.

Keywords

Arthroscopic surgery physical therapy modalities review shoulder trauma instability

Introduction

Traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations (TASD) account for between 80% and 90% of shoulder dislocations^1–5 and are the most common dislocation seen in accident and emergency and trauma clinics.^2,5 TASD occurs when the humeral head is forced anteriorly out of the glenoid fossa after an external blow to the arm, typically when the shoulder is abducted and externally rotated.⁶ Although this type of injury can occur at any age, peak incidence occurs in males aged 10–40 typically involved in contact sports,^5,7,8 with a second smaller peak in elderly people who sustain the injury during low-level falls.^2,9,10TASD can result in structural problems such as a Bankart lesion (avulsion of the inferior glenohumeral ligaments from the anteroinferior labarum) and a Hills-Sachs lesion (a compression fracture of the posterosuperolateral humeral head),^11,12 both of which predispose to chronic post-traumatic instability,¹³ with recurrent dislocation rates as high as 85%–92% in the young sporting population.¹⁴

Over half of people managed conservatively will experience a recurrent dislocation.¹³ There has therefore been a shift to immediate surgical intervention in an attempt to lower rates of recurrent dislocation.¹⁵ Arthroscopic Bankart repair, is currently the most commonly performed surgery for anterior shoulder instability.^16,17 The Laterjet is gaining increasing popularity in the presence of osseous glenoid defects, particularly in the contact athlete.^18,19

Reports of surgical advancements are rarely supplemented by alterations in post-operative rehabilitation programmes. The content of rehabilitation, if described at all, is rarely in enough detail to replicate. Studies comparing different rehabilitation programmes, irrespective of publication date, are few.^20,21 Accelerated rehabilitation programmes, with minimal post-operative immobilisation, have been documented as early as 2003²⁰ and have gained increasing profile following a later publication in 2016.²² However, it is unclear how the individual components of accelerated rehabilitation differ from more traditional rehabilitation programmes. A lack of formal comparison between rehabilitation programmes guidelines is confusing for clinicians and researchers wishing to identify “standard practice”. There is currently no synthesis of the content or outcome measures documented in research studies describing post-operative rehabilitation for TASD.

The objective of this systematic scoping review is to describe the rehabilitation programmes and outcome measures described in the primary literature following stabilisation surgery for TASD, the secondary aim being where possible, to compare the effectiveness of these programmes.

Methodology

This review was conducted according to the guidelines for the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement for scoping reviews²³ and has been registered on the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (Registration number CRD42020201438).

Data sources and search

MEDLINE, EMBASE (via Ovid) and CINAHL were searched from January 2000 to January 2020 using the NHS electronic library. The full Medline search strategy is presented in supplementary file 1 with search terms adapted for other databases. No language limits were applied. Reference lists of eligible publications were hand searched.

Study selection and eligibility criteria

Two independent reviewers (MC and LW) screened all retrieved titles and abstracts against pre-defined eligibility criteria. Full texts of potentially eligible papers were then sourced and reviewed (MC and LW).

Any study published in a peer reviewed journal from January 2000 that met the following criteria were included in the review: Participants, irrespective of age, who had undergone any type of anterior shoulder stabilisation surgery following at least one TASD identified as such by any professional healthcare practitioner or diagnostic imaging. Interventions must have been delivered by or involve one or more physiotherapists.

Studies were excluded from the review if they included participants with atraumatic shoulder instability or who had undergone surgery for degenerative superior labral anterior posterior lesions (SLAPs), posterior or multidirectional instability. The following interventions were excluded: treatment provided over the telephone, in which there had been no face to face contact with a physiotherapist or where ice/hot packs were the only form of physiotherapy.

Data extraction, categorisation and critical appraisal

Two independent reviewers (MC and LW) extracted data and entered it onto a custom designed data extraction form (Supplementary file 2). The form was piloted tested by MC and LW on three studies^21,22,24 and refined in response to any ambiguities. Details of any immobilisation period post operatively were recorded, and each treatment and exercise intervention were categorised for ease of synthesis and presentation of results. Exercise categories were developed and defined during consensus meetings including all the review authors and included: Range of Motion (ROM), Isometrics, Strength, Movement Re-education, Stability and Proprioceptive/Neuromuscular Training. Clinical trials comparing rehabilitation programmes were appraised using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale for randomised controlled trials.

Results

Study selection

The search strategy yielded 3283 citations, of which 46 were removed due to duplication. Following title and abstract screening 31 were selected for a full text review. A further 19 were excluded as the physiotherapy management was not specified. 12 studies were finally included in the scoping review. A PRISMA summary is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow chart outlining the literature search and study selection.

Study characteristics

In total, information from 14 treatment programmes were extracted from 12 papers covering 12 studies, 5 of which were clinical trials^{20,21,25–27} and 7 of which were observational studies.^{22,24,28–32} Of the 5 clinical trials in this review, two studies compared 2 groups receiving different rehabilitation programmes following surgery after TASD.^20,21 For the remaining 3 studies;^25–27 the aim was to compare either different surgical interventions, in which both groups received the same physiotherapy, or surgery versus physiotherapy. Two studies describe accelerated rehabilitation programmes, one of which was a cohort study²² and one a clinical trial.²⁰ The total number of participants included 659 males and 150 females with an age range of 15–57 years. Six papers (45% of participants) state that participants sustained a TASD due to a sport or physical activity. Full participant demographics are outlined in supplementary file 3.

Treatment programmes

The primary objective for 4 of the papers in this review was to describe the treatment programmes delivered by physiotherapists. For the remaining 8 papers, for whom this was not an objective, only a brief or general outline of treatment programmes were provided.

The exercises in each treatment programme were taken verbatim from the papers, categorised and summarised for clarity and conciseness in supplementary file 4. Exercises were performed independently by the patient, unless indicated otherwise.

Immobilisation

All but one of the studies²⁰ described an immobilisation period (See Table 1). This ranged 2 to 6 weeks. 11 of the 14 programmes used a sling, and 3 studies an alternative shoulder immobiliser.^27,28,30 Five programmes included a period of absolute shoulder immobilisation in a sling,^{20,21,24,26,31} of which 2 explicitly recommended continued use of the hand, wrist, and elbow.^20,21 The remaining 9 programmes all permitted some form of passive or active assisted shoulder movement during the immobilisation period.

Table 1.

Summary of immobilisation period and intervention milestones.

	Immobilisation Period					Treatments (Week commenced)
Reference	Yes/No	Duration	Position	Device	Permitted movements	PROM/ AAROM	AROM	Isometric exercises	Strength	Restricted Movements
Bottoni, 2002 USA	Yes	4 weeks	N/S	Sling	PROM and AAROM movements Isometric contractions Limited AROM	Week 1	Week 4	Week 1	Week 4	N/S
Damkjaer, 2015 Denmark (standard care group)	Yes	6 weeks	N/S	Sling	PROM and AAROM of wrist and fingers PROM and AAROM ER to neutral	Week 1	Week 4–6 (at surgeon's discretion)	N/S	Week 6	N/S
Damkjaer 2015, Denmark (guideline group)	Yes	0–3 weeks (depending on surgeon's discretion)	N/S	Sling	No movement permitted	Week 3	Week 6	Week 3	Week 6	0–6 weeks: Passive ER past 90° contraindicated 6–12 weeks: avoid stretching beyond goals, heavy lifting, plyometrics, push ups, military press. Avoid triceps dips, lat pull down or bar behind head until 16 weeks
Dickens, 2017 USA	Yes	6 weeks	N/S	Sling	No movement permitted	N/S	Week 6	N/S	Week 12	N/S
Edmonds, 2003 Canada	Yes	3 weeks	N/S	Sling	No movement permitted	Week 4	Week 7	Week 7	Week 9	ER limited to 20° past neutral weeks 0–6. ER limited to 45° past neutral weeks 7–8
Edwin, 2018 UK	Yes	4 weeks	N/S	Sling	Allowing ER to neutral	Week 4	Week 4	N/S	N/S	N/S
Eren, 2019 Turkey	Yes	4 weeks	N/S	Sling	No shoulder ROM permitted. Tabletop activities without sling encouraged. Postural exercises with sling and isometric exercises for deltoid strengthening started the day after surgery	Week 5	Week 5	Week 4	Week 5	ER over 60° abduction not permitted in first 9 weeks
Gibson, 2016 UK	No	N/A	N/A	Sling (2–3 weeks)	PROM and AROM exercises within "safe zone”. CKC, isometric and through range recruitment exercises started in first week post-op. Use of hand in sling (light activities) encouraged.	Week 1	Week 1	Week 1	Week 1	0–4 weeks: No combined abd and ER. No forced end range mobilisation. 3–10 weeks: Avoid passive stretching into combined abd/ER
Hiemstra, 2007 USA	Yes	2–4 weeks	N/S	Shoulder immobiliser	At 2 weeks, PROM and AAROM exercises were for elevation and ER to neutral	Week 2	Week 6	N/S	Week 6	N/S
Lutzner, 2009 Germany	Yes	6 weeks	N/S	Gilchrist cast	PROM 2x per day (anteversion up to 90°)	Week 1	Week 7	N/S	N/S	0–6 weeks: No abd/ER permitted
Milchteim, 2016 USA	Yes	6 weeks	N/S	Shoulder immobili-ser	Passive and gentle active assistive ROM exercises	Week 1	Week 5	N/S	Week 7	0–6 weeks: no active ER, extension, or abd allowed. Where a SLAP was repaired, no isolated biceps contractions allowed until week 5
Ozturk, 2013 USA	Yes	4 weeks	N/S	Sling	PROM in the scapular plane and pendulum exercises started in 1st week	Week 1	Week 3	N/S	Week 6	N/S
Kim, 2003 South Korea (conventional group)	Yes	3 weeks	Sling allowed the shoulder in 20° of abd and 40° of IR	Sling and pillow spacer	During this period, the patients allowed to flex their elbows and wrists and to wash the axilla daily	Week 3	N/S	N/S	Week 4
Kim, 2003 South Korea (accelerated group)	No	N/A	N/A	Sling only whensleeping	Pendulum and sub maximal isometric exercises from day 1 post-op	Week 1	N/S	Week 1	Week 2	0–2 weeks: Forward elevationonly to 90°

Accelerated programmes

The two accelerated programmes^20,22 began exercises 1–2 days post operatively, only using a sling when sleeping. Both programmes introduced shoulder mobilisation and strengthening exercises at different stages, the intensity being higher for Gibson's²² compared to Kim's²⁰ programme. Gibson permitted some active movements from the second day post operatively whereas Kim only permitted pendular exercises and submaximal isometric exercises for the first week post operatively.

Range of motion

Range of Motion (ROM) exercises were defined as any active, active assisted or passive movements for which the aim was to regain full range of shoulder movement. They were included in all programmes as one of the first interventions. Active assisted and passive movements were initiated in 7 programmes within the first week, one study did not report when they were commenced³¹ and the remaining 6 introduced them between the 2nd and 5th week. Active movement exercises were initiated between 1–7 weeks, the earliest being day 2 in Gibson's²² accelerated programme. Neither of Kim's²⁰ protocols (conventional or accelerated) specified when active movements were introduced. Early exercises typically included pendulum exercises or using a rope and pulley.

Isometrics

Isometrics were defined as muscle contractions where the length of the muscle and the angle of the joint do not change. These would often be completed early in the programme, and prior to active range of movement exercises in order to activate the shoulder muscles and restore some strength. The use of isometric exercises specifically for deltoid strengthening within the immobilisation period was reported in 5 of the 14 programmes.

Strength

Strengthening exercises were defined where there was resisted movement through range with increasing load. These were distinct from isometric exercises. Strengthening exercises began between 1 and 12 weeks. Detailed descriptions of strengthening exercises and biweekly progressions were described in 3 programmes, including both accelerated programmes.^20,22 Both Gibson and Kim begin strengthening in week one and week two respectively, although the intensity is higher in Gibson's²² than Kim's²¹ the latter being more comparable to that of Damkjaer's²⁴ standard rehabilitation group or Ozturk's²⁹ programme. These three papers describe similar exercises using dumbbells for the rotator cuff and scapular stabilisers from week 6. In addition to through range recruitment exercises, Gibson et al.²² also includes global strengthening work, incorporating closed kinetic chain exercises from week 1 and working the uninjured arm at high maximum voluntary contractions at week 3. It is not specified if these are isometric. Damkjær et al., despite not being defined as an accelerated programme, reports more advanced strengthening exercises (biceps, triceps, shrugs, rows, overhead dumbbell press, push ups) from week 6.²⁴

Two studies^28,32 did not specify whether or not strengthening exercises were used in their treatment programmes. The remaining 9 programmes provided guidelines on local scapula and rotator cuff exercises in different planes of motion. The use of increasing resistance bands and dumbbells were common progressions across these programmes.

Movement Re-education

Movement Re-education was defined as any movement or exercise for which the aim was to restore functional movement patterns at the shoulder. It was reported in 3 programmes.^20,22,26 Gibson et al.²² includes movement re-education in the form of proprioception and movement facilitation and “through range activation incorporating the kinetic chain” in the first week post operatively, Edmond²⁶ introduces scapular retractions week 4 post operatively and Kim²⁰ core exercises from week 10 post operatively.

Stability

Stability exercises were defined as the application of fluctuating resistance loads incorporating the kinetic chain, while the patient stabilises the shoulder in a symptom-free position. Stability exercises were specified in 5 treatment programmes. Stabilisation exercises were a key focus in Gibson's²² treatment programme. They were initiated early in the programme and at a higher intensity compared to the other 4 programmes. The accelerated programme had patients recruiting dynamic stabilisers from 0–4 weeks, then completing “preparatory and reactive stabilisation drills in risk positions” whilst incorporating the kinetic chain beginning from 3 weeks post operatively. Damkjaer et al.²⁴ reports the commencement of stability exercises 6 weeks post operatively in which the scapular stabilisers and rotator cuff are worked at high repetitions and low resistance. Stability exercises are commenced at week 10 in Kim's²⁰ programme including ‘tubing exercises in 90/90 position’ and trunk strengthening. Eren et al.²¹ reports the use of closed kinetic chain exercises such as push ups and rowing from week 13 post operatively with the aim of strengthening the scapula stabilisers.

Proprioceptive/neuromuscular training

Proprioceptive/Neuromuscular Training (PNMT) was defined as exercises or drills that train the nerves and muscles within the shoulder complex to react and communicate and included any sports specific or functional training, plyometrics, power, endurance, and advanced strengthening work. This was included in 6 programmes, 5 of which introduced in between 7 and 13 weeks post operatively. The remaining programme,²² focussed on professional footballers, commenced PNMT in the first week, initially in the form of maintaining cardiovascular fitness on a bike or incline treadmill, although this could be argued as general cardiovascular fitness than specific PNMT for the shoulder. At 3 weeks this progressed to completing non-contact drills and at 6 weeks incorporated function specific plyometrics, strength and endurance exercises, and “controlled falling drills”.

Four programmes provide details about advanced strengthening, power and endurance exercises^21,22,24,30 and four include plyometric exercises.^21,22,24,29

Clinical outcome measures

Nine papers used 7 different patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) (See Table 2). The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon's Shoulder Score (ASES) was the most commonly used (4/12 papers), although this does include a clinician rated components. Otherwise at most, only 2 studies reported on any one PROM. The most reported outcomes were range of movement (4 papers), return to play, and the Rowe Score for Instability.^20,21,28,30 Three papers report recurrence rates.^20,22,30

Table 2.

Summary of outcome measures.

Author, Date, Country	Patient Reported Outcome Measure							Return to Play	Recurrence Rate	Range of Motion	Strength	Constant-Murley Score	Rowe Score	Other
Author, Date, Country	SANE	PSFS	WOSI	OISS	DASH	ASES	VAS	Return to Play	Recurrence Rate	Range of Motion	Strength	Constant-Murley Score	Rowe Score	Other
Bottoni, 2002 USA	✓							✓
Damkjaer, 2015 Denmark (standard care group)		✓	✓					✓		✓
Damkjaer 2015, Denmark (guideline group)		✓	✓					✓
Dickens, 2017 USA								✓
Edmonds, 2003 Canada														✓
Edwin, 2018 UK				✓
Eren, 2019 Turkey					✓							✓	✓
Gibson, 2016 UK								✓	✓
Hiemstra, 2007 USA						✓				✓	✓
Lutzner, 2009 Germany										✓			✓	✓
Milchteim, 2016 USA						✓			✓	✓			✓	✓
Ozturk, 2013 USA						✓	✓			✓
Kim, 2003 South Korea (conventional group)						✓	✓		✓				✓	✓
Kim, 2003 South Korea (accelerated group)						✓	✓		✓				✓	✓

Of the 5 clinical trials in this review, two compared 2 groups receiving different post-operative rehabilitation programmes. See supplementary file 5 for PEDRO scores.

Kim et al.,²⁰ compared “accelerated” versus “conventional” rehabilitation. Participants were blinded to which group was accelerated. Participants receiving accelerated rehabilitation only wore their sling at night. There were no significant differences in outcome between groups at long term follow up in terms of reoccurrence, ROWE, ASES or return to activity. However, participants in the accelerated programme reported significantly less pain, at 6 weeks, were faster to regain full range external rotation and return to previous activities. Most of the patients in accelerated group were satisfied with early mobilisation and most of the conventional group were dissatisfied with brace immobilisation. Eren et al.²¹ scored poorly on the PEDro scale in part due to the absence of randomisation; participants could choose their treatment group. The trial consisted of a home-based group and supervised group. There were no significant differences in DASH, Rowe or Constant scores between groups at 6 or 12 months.

Discussion

The primary objective of this scoping review was to describe the rehabilitation programmes and outcome measures described in the primary literature following stabilisation surgery for TASD. Our findings indicate that there is significant variability in rehabilitation milestones. The period of shoulder immobilisation ranged from 1 day to 6 weeks post-operatively, during which some studies advocated absolute immobilisation, whilst others allowed various amounts of active, active assisted or passive movement. Whilst all studies included these movements as one of their first interventions, the point at which they were introduced varied between one and seven weeks. Isometric exercises, when described, were introduced early, often before active movements in order to activate the shoulder muscles and restore strength. The introduction of strengthening exercises ranged between 1 and 12 weeks. Movement re-education for shoulder function and stability, and exercises incorporating the wider kinetic chain were reported in 3 and 5 studies respectively and were introduced between 1 and 10 weeks post-operatively. Proprioceptive, neuromuscular or cardiovascular training, sports or function specific, including plyometric, power and endurance training were included in 6 studies and were introduced between weeks 1 and 13. In summary, whilst there are similarities in the overarching components of rehabilitation programmes, the period of immobilisation, type, intensity and point at which specific exercises are introduced varied considerably.

A wide variation of outcome measures was reported with no more than 4 studies reporting the same outcome. Most studies did not include PROMs specifically designed for shoulder instability. The definition of return to play varied between studies, from getting back to playing sport^22,25,29 or completing a full season without re-dislocation.^30,31

The risks and benefits of early versus standard immobilisation versus are still inconclusive due to lack of research. The very limited evidence available from the two studies^20,22 in our review suggests that early mobilisation may not be associated with increased instability. Early post-operative mobilisation has been studied extensively in the lower limb^33,34 and has been associated with decreased pain scores, and rapid recovery of muscle function.^35–38 Early research following rotator cuff repair suggests integrity of repair is maintained when comparing early versus delayed post-operative mobilisation.³⁹ The possibility of earlier safe mobilisation has important implications for the wide range of patients with TASD, for example, poor compliance with immobilisation periods,⁴⁰ working populations and loss of earnings,⁴¹ the psychological impact of not being engaged in leisure and sport,⁴² and for older patients, the risk of stiffness due to prolonged immobilisation.⁴³

Seventy six percent of participants in the studies included in this review had arthroscopic stabilisation, designed to minimise recovery times.⁴⁴ Small incisions and less invasive techniques, require less hospitalisation time, allowing patients to ideally return to their former activities sooner than open surgery. All studies in our review involved a Bankart in which the torn anterior labarum and anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament is reattached to the glenoid rim.⁴⁵ Other techniques such as Latarjet and Remplissage procedures, are increasingly common and involve bony and cartilaginous structures, for which physiological healing times will vary. Variation in types of stabilisation surgery needs to be considered for future rehabilitation programmes.

Biopsychosocial approach

Shoulder stabilisation surgery requires many months of rehabilitation to achieve a successful outcome. Patient expectation of recovery, pain, self-efficacy and fear avoidance predict outcome following surgery and rehabilitation.^46–50 The fundamental components for all treatment programmes in this review included optimising ROM, strength and functional recovery. None stated consideration of the psychological or social factors that may influence, for example return to play. When an athlete sustains an injury, it has psychosocial impacts^51–53 and many athletes do not return to sport due to fear of re-injury.⁵⁴ A common misconception historically is that physical and psychosocial recovery occurs at the same time.⁵⁵

Several systematic reviews have explored the role of preoperative self-efficacy and expectations of recovery in patients with chronic shoulder pain.^49,56 One of these reviews highlighted that the high levels of resilience and preoperative expectations are significantly associated with low levels of post-operative pain intensity.⁴⁹ Similarly, high levels of depressive symptoms anxiety, pain catastrophising, emotional distress and somatisation are significantly associated with high levels of pain intensity.⁴⁹ These finding are in keeping with those of Henn et al.⁴⁶ in that greater preoperative expectations correlated with better post-operative performance on the simple shoulder test, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scale and the Visual Analogue Scale following rotator cuff repair.⁴⁶ We therefore recommend pre-rehabilitation based on an integrated biopsychosocial model.

We recommend combining clinical measures and PROMs designed to capture impairment, function and participation following surgery and post-operative rehabilitation. We recommend PROMs, tested for their validity, reliability and responsiveness in capturing change specific to shoulder instability. Examples might include the Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI) and Oxford Shoulder Instability.⁵⁷ Return to play is an important measure for many people⁵⁸ and should be clearly defined.

Strengths and limitations

The PRISMA guideline extension for scoping reviews²³ was strictly followed throughout this review. Discussions with research and clinical experts at each stage of the review contributed to the search strategy, eligibility criteria, data extraction, and defining categories to subgroup each intervention component. The main limitation of this review is that only 2 clinical studies compared rehabilitation programmes, one of which was not randomised.

Conclusion

Following TASD, there is considerable variability in the post-operative immobilisation period and when each type of exercise is introduced. There is a lack of research comparing the effect of different rehabilitation programmes and a lack of evidence to guide post-operative rehabilitation. There is no consensus on the definition of accelerated rehabilitation, or recommended outcome measures. Recent advancements in surgical procedures and varying populations presenting with TASD may account in part, for some of the variability. We recommend incorporating a biopsychosocial approach alongside traditional biomechanically based interventions. Clinical consensus of standardised terminology and stages of rehabilitation is required prior to developing a randomised controlled trial.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the University of East Anglia and The Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital libraries for their assistance in conducing the search and gathering the relevant papers used in this review. The first draft of this manuscript was for MC's thesis contributing to an MSC (Pre Registration) in Physiotherapy at the University of East Anglia

Contributorship statement

RC and AJ conceived the presented idea. MC and LW completed the search and collected the data. MC analysed and interpreted the data with help from authors RC, AJ, HD and LW. The first draft was completed by MC. Critical revision of the article was completed by MC, RC and AJ. All authors were involved in the final approval of the version of the article to be published.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Anju Jaggi

Rachel Chester

References

Calvo

Caspari

. Arthroscopic treatment of anterior shoulder instability. A critical review of the different techniques available. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2000; 10: 93–97.

Cutts

Prempeh

Drew

. Anterior shoulder dislocation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2009; 91: 2–7.

Owens

Agel

Mountcastle

, et al. Incidence of glenohumeral instability in collegiate athletics. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37: 1750–1754.

Rhee

Cho

. Traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder: factors affecting the progress of the traumatic anterior dislocation. Clin Orthop Surg 2009; 1: 188–193.

Zacchilli

Owens

. Epidemiology of shoulder dislocations presenting to emergency departments in the United States. JB JS Open Access 2010; 92: 542–549.

Abrams

Akbarnia

. Shoulder dislocations overview. StatPearls. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29083735 (2018, accessed 10 October 2020).

Leroux

Wasserstein

Veillette

, et al. Epidemiology of primary anterior shoulder dislocation requiring closed reduction in Ontario, Canada. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42: 442–450.

Shah

Delmestri

Edwards

, et al. Incidence of shoulder dislocations in the UK, 1995–2015: a population-based cohort study. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e016112.

Olds

Ellis

Donaldson

, et al. Risk factors which predispose first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations to recurrent instability in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2015; 49: 913–922.

10.

Robinson

Corlette

Collins

, et al. Shoulder injuries among US high school athletes, 2005/2006–2011/2012. Pediatrics 2014; 133: 272–279.

11.

Bankart

. Recurrent or habitual dislocation of the shoulder-joint. Br Med J 1923; 2: 1132–1133.

12.

Hill

Sachs

. The grooved deficit of humeral head. Radiology 1940; 35: 690–700.

13.

Kavaja

Lähdeoja

Malmivaara

, et al. Treatment after traumatic shoulder dislocation: a systematic review with a network meta-analysis. Brit J Sports Med 2018; 52: 1498–1506.

14.

Longo

Salvatore

Locher

, et al. Epidemiology of paediatric shoulder dislocation: a nationwide study in Italy from 2001 to 2014. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 2834.

15.

Chahal

Marks

MacDonald

, et al. Anatomic Bankart repair compared with nonoperative treatment and/or arthroscopic lavage for first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation. Arthroscopy 2012; 28: 565–575.

16.

Owens

Harrast

Hurwitz

, et al. Surgical trends in Bankart repair: an analysis of data from the American board of orthopaedic surgery certification examination. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39: 1865–1869.

17.

Fox

Bonacci

Gill

, et al. Evaluating the effects of arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet shoulder stabilisation procedures on shoulder joint neuromechanics and function: a single-centre, parallel-arm trial protocol. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2021; 7: e000956.

18.

Domos

Lunini

Walch

. Contraindications and complications of the Latarjet procedure. Shoulder Elbow 2018; 10: 15–24.

19.

Horner

Moroz

Bhullar

, et al. Open versus arthroscopic Latarjet procedures for the treatment of shoulder instability: a systematic review of comparative studies. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018; 19: 55.

20.

Kim

Jung

, et al. Accelerated rehabilitation after arthroscopic Bankart repair for selected cases: a prospective randomized clinical study. Arthroscopy 2003; 19: 722–731.

21.

Eren

Canbulat

Atalar

, et al. A clinical comparison of home-based and hospital-based exercise programs following arthroscopic capsulolabral repair for anterior shoulder instability. J Sport Rehabil 2020; 29: 777–782.

22.

Gibson

. Accelerated rehabilitation after arthroscopic bankart repair in professional footballers. Shoulder Elbow 2016; 8: 279–286.

23.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

, et al. PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169: 467–473.

24.

Damkjær

Petersen

Juul-Kristensen

. Is the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists rehabilitation guideline better than standard care when applied to Bankart-operated patients? A controlled study. Clin Rehabil 2015; 29: 154–164.

25.

Bottoni

Wilckens

DeBerardino

, et al. A prospective, randomized evaluation of arthroscopic stabilization versus nonoperative treatment in patients with acute, traumatic, first-time shoulder dislocations. Am J Sports Med 2002; 30: 576–580.

26.

Edmonds

Kirkley

Birmingham

, et al. The effect of early arthroscopic stabilization compared to nonsurgical treatment on proprioception after primary traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2003; 11: 116–121.

27.

Hiemstra L

Sasyniuk

Mohtadi

NGH

, et al. Shoulder strength after open versus arthroscopic stabilization. Am J Sports Med 2008 ; 36: 861–867.

28.

Lützner

Krummenauer

Lűbke

, et al. Functional outcome after open and arthroscopic bankart repair for traumatic shoulder instability. Eur J Med Res 2009; 14: 18–24.

29.

Ozturk

Maak

Fabricant

, et al. Return to sports after arthroscopic anterior stabilization in patients aged younger than 25 years. Arthroscopy 2013; 29: 1922–1931.

30.

Milchteim

Tucker

Nye

, et al. Outcomes of Bankart repairs using modern arthroscopic technique in an athletic population. Arthroscopy 2016; 32: 1263–1270.

31.

Dickens

Rue

Cameron

, et al. Successful return to sport after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization versus nonoperative management in contact athletes with anterior shoulder instability: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45: 2540–2546.

32.

Edwin

Morris

Ahmed

, et al. Arthroscopic knotless anterior labral stabilization using labral tape and wide awake anaesthesia-short term results. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018; 19: 26.

33.

McCann-Spry

Pelton

Grandy

, et al. An interdisciplinary approach to reducing length of stay in joint replacement patients. Orthop Nurs 2016; 35: 279–298.

34.

Chua

Hart

Mittal

, et al. Early mobilisation after total hip or knee arthroplasty: a multicentre prospective observational study. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0179820.

35.

Guise

. Bone loss and fracture risk associated with cancer therapy. Oncologist 2006; 11: 1121–1131.

36.

Morris

Benetti

Marro

, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for early mobilization hours after surgery. Orthop Nurs 2010; 29: 290–316.

37.

Husted

Lunn

Troelsen

, et al.

Why still in hospital after fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty?

Acta Orthop 2011; 82: 679–684.

38.

Pritchard

Murphy

Cheng

, et al. Enhanced recovery following hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evidence. BMJ Open 2020; 10: e032204.

39.

Hsu

Horneff

Gee

. Immobilization after rotator cuff repair. What evidence do we have now? Orthop Clin North Am 2016; 47: 169–177.

40.

Nassiri

Egan

Mullet

. Compliance with sling-wearing after rotator cuff repair and anterior shoulder stabilization. Shoulder Elbow 2011; 3: 188–192.

41.

Brox

Skare

Mowinckel

, et al. Sick leave and return to work after surgery for type II SLAP lesions of the shoulder: a secondary analysis of a randomised sham-controlled study. BMJ Open 2020; 10: e035259.

42.

Truong

Mosewich

Holt

, et al. Psychological, social and contextual factors across recovery stages following a sport-related knee injury: a scoping review. Br J Sports Med 2020; 54: 1149–1156.

43.

Schott

Korbus

. Preventing functional loss during immobilization after osteoporotic wrist fractures in elderly patients: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014; 15: 87.

44.

Pihl

Roose

Nissen

, et al. Over-optimistic patient expectations of recovery and leisure activities after arthroscopic meniscus surgery: a prospective cohort study of 478 patients. Acta Orthop 2016; 87: 615–621.

45.

Alkaduhimi

Verweij

LPE

Willigenburg

, et al. Remplissage with bankart repair in anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review of the clinical and cadaveric literature. Arthroscopy 2019; 35: 1257–1266.

46.

Henn

Kang

Tashjian

, et al. Patients’ preoperative expectations predict the outcome of rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg 2007; 89: 1913–1919.

47.

Flanigan

Everhart

Glassman

. Psychological factors affecting rehabilitation and outcomes following elective orthopaedic surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2015; 23: 563–570.

48.

Chester

Jerosch-Herold

Lewis

, et al. Psychological factors are associated with the outcome of physiotherapy for people with shoulder pain: a multicentre longitudinal cohort study. Brit J Sports Med 2018; 52: 269–275.

49.

Martinez-Calderon

Meeus

Struyf

, et al. The role of psychological factors in the perpetuation of pain intensity and disability in people with chronic shoulder pain: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e020703.

50.

De Baets

Matheve

Meeus

, et al. The influence of cognitions, emotions and behavioral factors on treatment outcomes in musculoskeletal shoulder pain: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2019; 33: 980–991.

51.

Weiss

Psychological aspects of sport-injury rehabilitation: a developmental perspective. J Athl Train 2003; 38: 172–175.

52.

Podlog

Eklund

. Return to sport after serious injury: a retrospective examination of motivation and psychological outcomes. J Sport Rehabil 2005; 14: 20–34.

53.

Ardern

Taylor

Feller

, et al. Return-to-sport outcomes at 2 to 7 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40: 41–48.

54.

Ardern

Taylor

Feller

, et al. A systematic review of the psychological factors associated with returning to sport following injury. Brit J Sports Med 2013; 47: 1120–1126.

55.

Glazer

. Development and preliminary validation of the injury-psychological readiness to return to sport (I-PRRS) scale. J Athl Train 2009; 44: 185–189.

56.

Jackson

Wang

, et al. Self-efficacy and chronic pain outcomes: a meta-analytic review. J Pain 2014; 15: 800–814.

57.

van der Linde

van Kampen

van Beers

LWAH

, et al. The responsiveness and minimal important change of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index and Oxford Shoulder Instability Score. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017; 47: 402–410.

58.

Burland

Kostyun

, et al. Clinical outcome measures and return-to-sport timing in adolescent athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction’. J Athl Train 2018; 53: 442–451.

Post-operative rehabilitation following traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: A systematic scoping review

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Keywords

Introduction

Methodology

Data sources and search

Study selection and eligibility criteria

Data extraction, categorisation and critical appraisal

Results

Study selection

Study characteristics

Treatment programmes

Immobilisation

Accelerated programmes

Range of motion

Isometrics

Strength

Movement Re-education

Stability

Proprioceptive/neuromuscular training

Clinical outcome measures

Discussion

Biopsychosocial approach

Strengths and limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Contributorship statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References