ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Comparison of clinical outcomes between plastic braces versus sponge abduction packs in the early rehabilitation period after rotator cuff repair.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe study compares adjustable plastic braces fixed at 45° abduction versus sponge abduction packs for their effects on short-term pain and functional outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, while analyzing the feasibility of replacing sponge abduction packs with plastic braces.
methodsA total of 48 patients were recruited between April and July 2024 and stratified by gender into 4 groups: plastic brace group and sponge abduction pack group (12 patients each). At 3 weeks post-operation, follow-up was conducted using the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) as the primary measure for shoulder joint function, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Range of Motion (ROM), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Short Form 12 (SF-12) as secondary measures for pain, mobility, sleep quality, and quality of life.
resultsA total of 44 patients were enrolled, 23 in the plastic brace group and 21 in the sponge abduction pack group. At 3 weeks postoperatively, significant between-group differences were observed in abduction angle (78.5 ± 7.9 vs. 72.9 ± 7.2, P = 0.02), whereas WORC scores showed no statistical significance (90.1 ± 24.0 vs. 71.8 ± 29.1, P = 0.22).In subgroup analysis by gender, the difference in WORC score was statistically significant between sponge abduction pack and plastic brace groups in females (70.0 ± 29.1 vs. 100.7 ± 19.6, P = 0.03).
conclusionThe use of a plastic brace instead of a sponge abduction pack after rotator cuff repair shows potential feasibility and results in a greater abduction angle in the early rehabilitation period. In addition, the plastic brace showed better clinical outcomes than the sponge abduction pack especially in females.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Center (ChiCTR2500095943),20,250,115.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.