Evaluates shoulder mobility in Taiwanese patients, showing home rehab is comparable to hospital care.
Background: Optimal postoperative rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair remains debated, particularly regarding the comparative effectiveness of home-based versus hospital-based protocols. Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the short-term functional outcomes of home-based and hospital-based physical therapy (PT) in patients following double-row rotator cuff and subscapularis repair in the setting of Taiwanese population. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 30 patients who underwent double-row rotator cuff and subscapularis repair by a single surgeon. Patients were grouped according to their rehabilitation protocol: 11 received home-based rehabilitation and 19 received hospital-based rehabilitation. Baseline characteristics include age, gender, and preoperative frozen shoulder were compared. The primary endpoint was shoulder range of motion in forward flexion, abduction, external rotation and internal rotation, measured both actively and passively at 3 months postoperatively. Statistical comparisons were made for age, gender, and frozen shoulder. Results: Baseline demographics – mean age, gender distribution, and frozen shoulder prevalence – were similar between groups (all P > 0.7). At 3 months, both home-based and hospital-based groups demonstrated improvement in all ROM parameters. No statistically significant differences were found in active or passive ROM for forward flexion, abduction, internal, or external rotation between the two groups. Subgroup analysis for patients with frozen shoulder similarly revealed no significant differences in ROM outcomes. No major complications or adverse events occurred in either group during the follow-up. Conclusions: Home-based rehabilitation provides short-term shoulder mobility outcomes comparable to those of hospital-based PT after rotator cuff and subscapularis repair. Both protocols appear suitable for postoperative rehabilitation, with home-based protocols offering a feasible, resource-saving alternative for appropriate patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: