Return to Sport After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: Is There a Difference Between the Recreational and the Competitive Athlete?

BACKGROUND: Return to sport (RTS) remains an important challenge and measure of success for athletes undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR).

PURPOSE: To determine the rate of RTS after RCR and to analyze predictive factors associated with a lower rate of return.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The electronic databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were used for the literature search. Study quality was evaluated according to the Coleman Methodology Score. Studies in English evaluating RTS after arthroscopic repair of partial- or full-thickness rotator cuff tears among athletes of all levels, ages, and sports were included. Random effects meta-analysis and metaregression were performed to investigate RTS activity rate after arthroscopic RCR and to explore study heterogeneity, respectively.

RESULTS: Fifteen studies were reviewed, including 486 patients (499 shoulders) who were treated with arthroscopic RCR and who had a mean follow-up of 40.1 months (range, 18-74.4 months). Eighteen patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 468 patients with outcome data; 347 identified themselves as athletes (81 competitive, 266 recreational). The most commonly included sports were baseball (n = 45), golf (n = 38), football (n = 23), and tennis (n = 18). RTS specific to the type of athlete was reported for 299 of 347 athletes. According to the meta-analysis, the overall rate of RTS at a similar level of play or higher was 70.2%, with 73.3% of recreational athletes and 61.5% of competitive athletes able to return. A subset of 43 baseball and softball players across 4 studies yielded a 79% rate of RTS; however, only 38% returned to the same level of play or higher. Subgroup meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the rate of RTS between competitive and recreational athletes. Metaregression analysis revealed that the mean follow-up time and mean age at surgery were not significantly associated with RTS rate.

CONCLUSION: Most athletes (70.2%) were able to return to a preinjury level of play after arthroscopic RCR. While recreational sports participation (73.3%) was associated with higher return, competitive sports (61.5%) and overhead sports (38%) were associated with lower return. Exactly why all athletes do not return remains uncertain and likely multifactorial.