Effect of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Timing on Rotator Cuff Repair Revisions and Capsulitis.

INTRODUCTION: One variable that could potentially affect failure of a rotator cuff repair (RCR) is the timing of beginning physical therapy (PT) after the procedure. Although many studies have demonstrated decreased stiffness with beginning PT early, studies have also demonstrated that early PT increases repair failure. The goal of this study was to identify revision surgery and capsulitis rates after RCRs from an available database and determine whether an association was present with the timing of PT post-RCR. METHODS: Medicare patients within the PearlDiver database who underwent RCR were stratified based on the timing of their first PT session postoperatively, and revision surgery and capsulitis rates were determined among the groups for both open and arthroscopic RCR. Demographics and comorbidities of the cohort were also used to formulate a multivariate analysis for revision surgery rate. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 64,842 patients who underwent RCR and started PT within 13 weeks of surgery. Starting PT within 1 week postoperatively resulted in a significantly higher revision surgery rate compared with starting PT in weeks 2 to 5, 6 to 9, or 10 to 13 (6.9% vs. 3.6% among all other groups, P = <0.001). The multivariate analysis for revision surgery further demonstrated that starting PT within 1 week postoperatively was associated with a significantly higher rate of revision surgery compared with beginning PT after 1 week (OR = 2.086, P < 0.001). No association was found between timing of beginning PT and capsulitis rates. CONCLUSION: In the Medicare patient cohort, beginning PT within 1 week postoperatively was associated with a significantly higher revision surgery rate; however, no associated benefit was noted in capsulitis rates for beginning PT early. This calls into question the use of an early passive range of motion protocol for older patient cohort; however, further studies should be completed to conclusively determine the most efficacious time to begin rehabilitation post-RCR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Trends in Corticosteroid Injections for Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: An Analysis of 80,169 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Corticosteroid (CS) injections are a frequently used treatment modality for lateral epicondylitis (LE) despite an increasing number of studies suggesting their lack of efficacy. The objective of this study was to review the annual utilization of CS injections for treatment of LE, as well as that of other nonsurgical treatments and surgical treatments, to understand how recent publications have affected the practice of physicians in treating LE. METHODS: Patients with LE from 2010 to 2017 were identified within a national insurance database and grouped by treatment modalities of CS injections, physical therapy, bracing treatment, and surgery. Epidemiologic and demographic data were reported using descriptive statistics. The number of patients receiving each treatment and the number of CS injections per patient were quantified for each year, and annual trends were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 80,169 qualifying patients, 16,476 received CS injections, 12,180 received physical therapy, 1,874 received bracing treatment, and 2,650 underwent surgery, with patients receiving multiple modalities being members of each respective group. We found a significant decrease in the proportion of patients with LE receiving CS injections from 23.3% in 2010 to 18.8% in 2017 (R2 = 0.956, P < 0.001). Interestingly, the number of CS injections per patient increased during this period from 1.33 to 1.83 (R2 = 0.843, P = 0.001). No notable changes in utilization trends for other modalities were found. DISCUSSION: Overall, our data support a decline in the use of CS injection as a treatment modality for LE from 2010 to 2017. Although correlational, this trend may reflect the increasing body of published evidence demonstrating the ineffectiveness of CS injections for the treatment of LE. In addition, the increasing number of injections per patient among those who received injections contrasts with the overall decrease in steroid utilization among all patients. Further study is needed to fully understand the mechanisms behind these trends.