Table 4.

Clinical and structural outcomes in the early and delayed rehabilitation groups after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in various RCTs, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

Author, y	Type of study	Comparative group characteristics (early vs. delayed rehabilitation)	Outcome
Cuff and Pupello (2012)173	RCT, 64 patients	Crescent tear; TOE repair	Functional result: No difference between the two groups Structural result: Better healing rate in the delayed group (91% vs. 85%, p > 0.5)
Lee et al (2012)176	Comparative study, 68 patients	Medium–large-sized tear; SR repair	Functional result: Better recovery in 3 months but no difference at 1 year Structural result: Better healing of cuff in the delayed rehabilitation group vs. the aggressive group (91.2 % vs. 76.7 %, p = 0.105)
Keener et al (2014)174	RCT, 124 patients	Small–medium-sized tears; TOE repair	No difference in functional or structural outcome
Kluczynski et al (2014)175	Systematic review and meta-analysis, 28 studies	Small–large-sized tear; TO, SR, DR repairs	Risk of retear was high for tear size > 5 cm in the early group vs. the late group repaired by DR (56.4% vs. 20%, p = 0.002; RR = 2.82) and for all repair methods combined (52.2% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.01; RR = 2.31)
Ross et al (2014)177	Review of seven studies (RCTs and other types)	All types of tear and repair	The accelerated group has a trend for better pain, ROM, and functional scores, but slightly higher retear rates as compared with the slow rehabilitation group

DR = double row; RCT = randomized controlled trial; ROM = range of motion; SR = single row; TO = transosseous; TOE = transosseous equivalent; RR = relative risk.