Effectiveness of Compensatory Vehicle Control Techniques Exhibited by Drivers after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Surgery

Current return-to-drive recommendations for patients following rotator cuff repair (RCR) surgery are not uniform due to a lack of empirical evidence relating driving safety and time-after-surgery. To address the limitations of previous work, Badger et al. (2022) evaluated, on public roads, the driving fitness of patients prior to RCR and at multiple post-operative timepoints. The goal of the Badger, et al. study was to make evidence-based return-to-drive recommendations in an environment with higher fidelity than that of a simulator and not subject to biases inherent to surveys.

Badger et al., however, do not fully investigate the driving practices exhibited by subjects, overlooking the potential presence of compensatory driver behaviors. Further investigation of these behaviors through observation of direct driving techniques and practices over time can specifically answer how drivers may modify their behaviors to address a perceived state of impairment. Additionally, the degree of success in vehicle operation by comparing an ideal turn to the path taken by the driver allows for a level of quantification of the effectiveness of the compensatory techniques. Moreover, driver trajectories inferred from the vehicle Controller Area Network (CAN) metrics and from global positioning system (GPS) coordinates are contrasted with the ideal turn to assess minimum requirements for future sensors that are used to make these trajectory comparisons.

This investigation leverages pre-existing data collected by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) and Carilion Clinic as used in the analysis performed by Badger et al. (2022). RCR patients (n=27) executed the same prescribed driving maneuvers and drove the same route in a preoperative state and at 2-, 4-, 6-, and 12-weeks post operation. Behavioral data were annotated to extract key characteristics of interest and related them to relevant vehicle sensor readings. To construct vehicle paths, data was obtained from the on-board data acquisition system (DAS).

Behavioral metrics considered the use of ipsilateral vehicle controls, performance of non-primary vehicle tasks, and steering techniques utilized to assess the impact of mobility restrictions due to sling use. Sling use was found to be a significant factor in use of the non-ipsilateral hand associated with the operative extremity (i.e., operative hand) on vehicle functions and, in particular, difficulty with the gear shifting control. Additionally, when considering the performance of non-primary vehicle tasks as assessed through a prescribed visor manipulation, sling use was not a significant factor for the task duration or completion of the task in a fluid motion. Sling use was, however, significant with respect to operative hand position prior to the completion of the visor manipulation: the operative hand was often not on the steering wheel prior to the visor maneuver. In addition, the operative hand was never used to manipulate the visor when the sling was worn. One-handed steering was also more frequent with the presence of the sling.

Further behavioral analysis assessed the presence of compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects during periods in which impairment was perceived. Perceived impairment was observed as a function of the different experimental timepoints. Findings indicated a significant decrease in the lateral vehicle jerk during post-operative weeks 6 and 12. Significant differences, however, were not observed in body position alteration to avoid contact with the interior vehicle cabin, in over-the-shoulder checks, and in forward leans during yield and merge maneuvers.

Regarding trajectory analysis, sling use did not produce a significant difference in the error metrics between the actual and ideal paths. In completion of turning maneuvers, however, operative extremity was significant for left turns, with greater error against the ideal path observed from those in the left operative cohort compared to those in the right operative cohort. For the right turn, however, operative extremity was not found to be a significant factor. In addition, the GPS data accuracy proved insufficient to support comparison against the ideal path.

Overall, findings from this study provide metrics beyond those used in Badger, et al. that can be used in answering when it is safe for rotator cuff repair patients to return-to-drive. With the limited differences observed as a function of study timepoint and sling use, it is recommended that patients are able to safely return-to-drive at two weeks post-operation. If anything, results suggest that overcompensation, as inferred from observation of safer driving behaviors than normal, is present during some experimental timepoints, particularly post-operative week 2.