No Clinically Significant Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes and Range of Motion Between Early and Delayed...

Area of Science:

• Orthopedic Surgery
• Sports Medicine
• Rehabilitation Science

Background:

• No standardized rehabilitation protocol exists for post-distal biceps tendon repair.
• Variability in mobilization strategies impacts patient outcomes.
• A systematic review is needed to clarify the optimal timing for mobilization.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the clinical outcomes of early versus delayed mobilization after distal biceps tendon repair.
• To determine if early mobilization leads to different results compared to delayed mobilization.
• To provide evidence-based recommendations for postoperative rehabilitation.

Main Methods:

• Systematic review and meta-analysis adhering to PRISMA guidelines.
• Inclusion of 26 studies with 1114 patients.
• Categorization into early (mobilization ≤ 2 weeks) and delayed (mobilization > 2 weeks) cohorts.

Main Results:

• No significant differences in flexion or extension range of motion (ROM) between early and delayed mobilization.
• Early mobilization associated with significantly less pronation and supination.
• No significant differences in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) like DASH or MEPS scores.
• Failure rates showed a significant difference in proportion but not incidence rate.
• Complication rates were not statistically different between groups.

Conclusions:

• Early and delayed mobilization strategies yield comparable clinical outcomes for distal biceps tendon repair.
• No significant differences observed in failure rates, complications, ROM, or PROs.
• Current evidence suggests flexibility in choosing mobilization timing post-surgery.