Table 3.
Rehabilitation structure and content
| Profession (n) | Physiotherapists (62) | Surgeons (28) | p value* |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients received by referral [% (n)] | 48.4 (30/62) | – | – |
| Patients referred to physiotherapist [% (n)] | – | 96.4 (27/28) | – |
| Rated importance of physiotherapya [% (n)] | 91.9 (57/62) | 82.1 (23/28) | N. S |
| Number of physiotherapy meetings per month | |||
| Median (IQR) | 4 (2–6) | – | – |
| Number of surgical follow-ups | |||
| Median (IQR) | – | 2 (2–2) | – |
| Specific protocol followed/recommended [% (n)] | 61.3 (38/62) | 72 (18/25) | N. S |
| Protocol criteria-based/criteria- and time-based [% (n)] | 86.7 (52/60) | 77.8 (21/27) | N. S |
| Rated high importance ofa | |||
| Exercise therapy [% (n)] | 98.4 (60/61) | 85.2 (23/27) | 0.029 |
| Manual therapy [% (n)] | 18 (11/61) | 25 (7/28) | N. S |
| Electro-physical modalities [% (n)] | 1.7 (1/60) | 0 (0/28) | N. S |
| Applied evaluation of treatment byb | |||
| Subjective outcomes [% (n)] | 91.4 (53/58) | 100 (26/26) | N. S |
| Objective outcomes [% (n)] | 91.3 (52/56) | 96.3 (26/27) | N. S |
| Evaluation of readiness to return to sport (RTS)c [% (n)] | 74.2 (46/62) | 50 (14/28) | 0.024 |
| Influence on RTS decisiond | |||
| Patient [% (n)] | 80.3 (49/61) | 75 (21/28) | N. S |
| Physiotherapist [% (n)] | 60.7 (37/61) | 46.4 (13/28) | N. S |
| Surgeon [% (n)] | 48.4 (29/60) | 39.3 (11/28) | N. S |
n Number of respondents
* Between group comparison, Chi square test
a Respondents rating respective modality as either “extremely important” or “very important”
b Respondents reporting to “sometimes”/“always” evaluate treatment by subjective/objective outcomes
c Respondents reporting to evaluate readiness to return to sport
d Respondents rating the influence of respective roles in the return to sport decision process as “extremely influential” or “very influential”