http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4770-6559
Figures
Abstract
Background
Scientific evidence is not clear regarding the routine use of acromioplasty in the treatment of rotator cuff repair. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without concomitant acromioplasty.
Methods
Medline, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched to identify eligible studies focused on arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without acromioplasty from January 2000 to February 2018. Postoperative functional outcomes, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and reoperation rate were extracted for systemic analysis.
Results
Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one cohort study (CS), including 651 patients, fulfilled our selection criteria. The results showed a significant difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, but not in the Constant score, University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) score, or Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score, in the treatment of rotator cuff tear with or without concomitant acromioplasty at the final follow-up. In the subgroup analysis, the results showed no significant differences between the two treatments in reoperation rate at the final follow-up or VAS score at 6 months postoperatively and final follow-up, but there was a significant difference in VAS score at 12 months postoperatively in favor of acromioplasty treatment. The evidence quality for each outcome evaluated by the GRADE system was low.
Conclusions
In summary, our present study demonstrated that acromioplasty treatment is significantly superior to nonacromioplasty in shoulder pain relief at 12 months postoperatively and in ASES score improvement at the final follow-up in conjunction with rotator cuff repair. However, these significant differences were not clinically relevant. Thus, there were no differences in shoulder function or pain scores for patients undergoing rotator cuff repair with and without acromioplasty. Further high-quality studies with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-ups are needed to clarify this issue.
Citation: Cheng C, Chen B, Xu H, Zhang Z, Xu W (2018) Efficacy of concomitant acromioplasty in the treatment of rotator cuff tears: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 13(11): e0207306. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207306
Editor: Just Alexander van der Linde, Sint Antonius Ziekenhuis, NETHERLANDS
Received: May 19, 2018; Accepted: October 28, 2018; Published: November 15, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Cheng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Armstrong et al.[1] first observed mechanical impingement between the rotator cuff and acromion in shoulder impingement syndrome in 1949. Subsequently, Neer et al.[2] reported that bony spurs at the anterior and lateral edges of the acromion led to 95% of rotator cuff attritions and tears, and they then performed acromioplasty as a concomitant procedure with or without rotator cuff tear, which has recently evolved into an arthroscopic approach[3]. The subsequent studies by Balke and Worland et al.[4,5] described a relationship between acromial morphology and the presence of rotator cuff pathologies, and they found that a hooked-type acromion was more likely to cause rotator cuff disease. Then, Ellman et al.[6] developed the arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) treatment, which included acromioplasty, coracoacromial ligament (CAL) resection, and subacromial bursectomy, to heighten the subacromial space and protect the integrity of the rotator cuff. Since then, arthroscopic acromioplasty and arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) have gained large popularity. From 1996 to 2008, the number of acromioplasty treatments increased by approximately 250%[7]. Nearly 40% of patients undergoing rotator cuff repairs in Finland received arthroscopic acromioplasty[8].
Arthroscopic acromioplasty is increasingly recognized by surgeons due to its concomitant visualization of the glenohumeral joint, preservation of the deltoid muscle, improvement of subacromial sight, and quick recovery time [9,10]. However, several studies have suggested that functional outcomes of rotator cuff repair are similar whether or not acromioplasty is used. Ranalletta et al.[11] reported significant functional improvements in seventy-four patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs at the midterm follow-up of 42 months without acromioplasty. Freedman et al.[12] found that the improvement of clinical outcomes and pathologic progress of rotator cuff were irrelevant to concomitant arthroscopic acromioplasty at the mean follow-up of 4.5 years. Thus, the benefits of acromioplasty remain questionable, although it has been routinely performed for many years [13]. Moreover, several studies have indicated that rotator cuff tears are mainly due to age-related degeneration and intrinsic overloading rather than extrinsic factors, such as subacromial impingement [14,15].
To our knowledge, previous systematic reviews have not supported the routine use of acromioplasty in conjunction with rotator cuff repair [16–19]; rather, they have recommended that further studies be performed. To date, several new studies have been published to assess the role of acromioplasty, which warrants an updated review containing all clinical trials.
The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the available functional scores and reoperation rate in clinical trials to ascertain the efficacy of acromioplasty in patients with rotator cuff repair. These results will provide more reliable evidence to determine the appropriate method.
Materials and methods
Literature search
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (data in S1 Table). Medline, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched by two independent investigators with no language restrictions from January 2000 to February 2018 (data in S1 Appendix). We used a text search strategy with combinations of the following terms: (rotator cuff) AND (acromioplasty OR subacromial decompression). Reference lists were also hand-searched for relevant studies.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Two independent reviewers screened article titles and abstracts based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing acromioplasty or subacromial decompression with nonacromioplasty; (2) studies of patients diagnosed with rotator cuff tears; (3) studies that provided quantifiable outcomes. The following exclusion criteria were used: (1) studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria; (2) animal studies, case reports, comments, conference papers, meta-analysis or systematic reviews.
Data extraction
Three independent reviewers designed a structured table and collected all of the relevant data into a database. The following information was extracted from each study that met the inclusion criteria: first author’s name, quality evaluation, inclusion criteria, surgical procedures, sample size, mean follow-uptime, follow-up rate, and outcomes measures. We also attempted to contact the corresponding authors to verify the accuracy of the data and to obtain further analytical data.
Quality assessment
The methodological quality of each RCT was assessed using the software RevMan (version 5.1, The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, England) by two reviewers, which contained the following items: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias. It was judged by answering a question, with “yes” indicating low risk of bias, “no” indicating high risk of bias, and “unclear” indicating unclear or unknown risk of bias [20]. The methodological quality of cohort studies were assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) by the same reviewers. The corresponding author was consulted when there were any disagreements, and a consensus was reached by discussion.
Evidence synthesis
The evidence grade for the main outcomes are assessed using the guidelines of the Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system working group including the following items: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. The recommendation level of evidence is classified into the following categories: (1) high, which means that further research is unlikely to change confidence in the effect estimate; (2) moderate, which means that further research is likely to significantly change confidence in the effect estimate but may change the estimate; (3) low, which means that further research is likely to significantly change confidence in the effect estimate and to change the estimate; and (4) very low, which means that any effect estimate is uncertain. The evidence quality is graded using the GRADEpro Version 3.6 software. The evidence quality was graded using the GRADEpro Version 3.6 software. The strengths of the recommendations were based on the quality of the evidence.
Statistical analysis
All analyses were performed by RevMan 5.1. For continuous data, standardized mean differences (SMD) or weighted mean (WMD) differences were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For dichotomous data, relative risk (RR) and 95% CIs were used as a summary statistic. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The p-value with the Cochrane Q-test was texted, and the I2 statistic was used to measure the inconsistency of treatment effects across studies. A random effects model was used if high heterogeneity was detected (p<0.10, I2>50%); otherwise, a fixed effects model was used. Subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the stability of the results. Sensitivity analyses were performed by the leave-one-out approach using STATA 14.0 (STATA Corp, College Station, TX). Publication bias was evaluated by a funnel plot if more than 10 studies were included [21].
Results
Study identification and selection
In total, 619 candidate publications were retrieved. However, 347 publications were excluded due to duplications. Among the 372 remaining articles, 357 articles were excluded according to titles and abstracts. Then 15 full-text articles were further evaluated for eligibility. Eight studies were excluded because two of them reported acromioplasty only, four referred to the same study, and two did not provide quantifiable outcomes. Finally, six RCTs and one cohort study with a total of 651 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis.[22–28] The flow diagram of study selection is shown in Fig 1.
Study characteristics and methodological quality
Among the included RCTs, four studies were level I [22–24, 26, 27] and two were level II [25]. There was one study at high risk of bias in the blinding of participants and personnel, and the other studies were all at low risk or unclear (Fig 2). In addition, the NOS score of the cohort study was 8 [28], which was considered as a high-quality study. The experimental intervention were arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with acromioplasty in two studies, and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with subacromial decompression in five studies. All trials were written in English. The characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1.
“+” = low risk of bias; “?” = unclear risk of bias; and “-” = high risk of bias.
Clinical outcomes
Constant score was reported in 3 RCTs [24,26,27], with 146 patients treated with acromioplasty and 140 with nonacromioplasty. The P value with the Cochran's Q test was 0.08, and the I2 statistic was 61%, which indicated high heterogeneity. Thus a random effect model was used. There was no statistically significant difference between the two group (MD, 0.49[95% CI, -2.65 to 3.63 ]; P = 0.76)(Fig 3).
ASES score was reported in 5 RCTs [22, 23, 25–27], with 226 patients treated with acromioplasty and 211 with nonacromioplasty. The P value with the Cochran's Q test was 0.99, and the I2 statistic was 0%, which indicated low heterogeneity. Thus a fixed effect model was used.There was statistically significant difference in favor of acromioplasty treatment(MD, 2.94[95%CI, 0.39 to 5.48]; P = 0.02)(Fig 4).
UCLA score was reported in 3 RCTs [25–27], with 147 patients treated with acromioplasty and 129 with nonacromioplasty. The P value with the Cochran's Q test was 0.37, and the I2 statistic was 0%, which indicated low heterogeneity. Thus a fixed effect model was used. There was no statistically significant difference between the two group (MD, 0.51[95%CI, -0.29 to 1.32]; P = 0.21)(Fig 5).
SST score was reported in 2 RCTs and one cohort study [25, 26, 28], with 121 patients treated with acromioplasty and 102 with nonacromioplasty. The P value with the Cochran's Q test was 0.87, and the I2 statistic was 0%, which indicated low heterogeneity. Thus a fixed effect model was used. There was no statistically significant difference between the two group (MD, 0.20[95%CI, -0.27 to 0.66]; P = 0.41)(Fig 6).
Shoulder pain
At 6 months, 2 RCTs and one cohort study reported shoulder VAS score [26–28],with 146 patients treated with acromioplasty and 136 with nonacromioplasty, and there were no statistically significant difference between the two group (MD, -0.06[95%CI, -0.85 to 0.73], I2 = 72%, p = 0.88). At 12 months, the synthesis of 2 RCTs including 215 patients[26, 27] demonstrated a statistically significant difference in favor of acromioplasty treatment (MD, −0.61[95% CI, −1.00 to −0.21], I2 = 0%, p = 0.003). At the final follow-up, the pooled results of 2 RCTs and one cohort study [26–28] showed no statistically significant difference between the two group (MD, −0.02 [95% CI, −0.33 to 0.28], I2 = 0%, p = 0.88) (Fig 7).
Reoperation rate
Reoperation rate was reported in 4 RCTs [23, 25–27] including 188 patients treated with acromioplasty and 174 with nonacromioplasty. In the acromioplasty group, 4 patients in two studies [25, 27] had arthroscopic capsular release, and 12 individuals in three studies [25–27] had arthroscopic rotator cuff revision. There was no statistically significant difference between the two group (RR, 0.91[95%CI, 0.28 to 2.97]; I2 = 0%, P = 0.88). In the nonacromioplasty group, 4 patients in three studies [23, 25, 26] had arthroscopic capsular release, and 19 individuals in four studies [23, 25–27] had arthroscopic rotator cuff revision. The results also showed no statistically significant difference (RR, 0.62[95%CI, 0.32 to 1.19]; I2 = 0%, P = 0.15)(Fig 8).
Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analyses were performed by the leave-one-out approach from the aforementioned meta-analyses. There were no difference in the direction of the conclusions with studies removed in turn, which indicated that our results are statistically robust (Fig 9).
Quality of the evidence and recommendation strengths
Six outcomes in this meta-analysis were evaluated using the GRADE system. The evidence quality for each outcome was low (Fig 10). Therefore, we agree that the overall evidence quality is low, which indicates that further research is likely to significantly change confidence in the effect estimate and may change the estimate.
Discussion
In our study, we first focused on subgroup analyses of shoulder pain and reoperation rate in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without concomitant acromioplasty. We demonstrated that acromioplasty treatment was associated with a significant shoulder pain relief at 12 months postoperatively, but no significant difference in reoperation rate, which was mainly caused by rotator cuff retear and adhesive capsulitis. In addition, the routine use of acromioplasty significantly improved ASES score at the final follow-up. No significant differences were observed in other clinical outcomes (Constant score, UCLA score, SST score), or in pain relief at 6 months postoperatively and at the final follow-up. The overall evidence was low, which indicates that further research is likely to significantly change confidence in the effect estimate and may change the estimate. Based on the current available evidence, more high-quality studies are needed for further investigation.
Our study included one high-quality cohort study, 4 level I RCTs and 2 level II RCTs, which is a larger number of patients than previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, making our results more dependable. Furthermore, the six RCTs had low risks of attrition bias and reporting bias, which contributed to reducing the systematic error. Another strength is that the heterogeneity, as assessed using the I2 statistic, was low across most outcome measures, indicating consistent outcomes across the studies. The outcome measure with relatively high heterogeneity was the Constant score. Notably, only three studies had a small number of patients in this analysis; thus, the results may require further confirmation.
We evaluated all of the available outcome measures, the number of which was larger than in previous reviews. Significant differences were observed in ASES and pain scores in the acromioplasty group. The mean difference in ASES score was 2.94 (from 0.39 to 5.48), and the mean difference in VAS score was -0.61 (from 1.00 to 0.21). However, a previous study of total shoulder arthroplasty showed that the minimal clinical relevant difference in ASES score was a 20.9-point improvement and for the VAS score a 1.4-point improvement [29]; thus, the significant differences of ASES score and pain score were not clinically relevant in our study. Moreover, only two studies with small numbers of patients were involved in the subgroup analysis of pain score, the result may be underpowered, and a definite conclusion could not be drawn on this topic.
Acromioplasty treatment is an essential part of ASD that consists of subacromial bursectomy and CAL resection. The importance of preserving CAL was first described by Codman et al. [30]. Then, several studies stated the potential disadvantages of the CAL resection, involving muscle weakness, adhesive capsulitis in the acromial space that limited shoulder mobility, and anterosuperior glenohumeral instability [31–33]. Rothenberg et al.[34] found the CAL played an important role in mechanosensory feedback loops that helped to dynamically stabilize the entire range of motion of the shoulder. Cay et al.[35] examined 40 patients undergoing rotator cuff repairs via magnetic resonance imaging and found that the acromio-humeral and coraco-humeral distances were narrower than normal limits in patients with rotator cuff tears. They concluded that the coracoacromial arch angle was an inducing factor for rotator cuff tears. Jaeger et al.[36] showed that patients with partial-thickness rotator cuff tears had satisfying clinical recovery to 90.9% of all cases after receiving ASD, and those with full-thickness tears had satisfying clinical recovery to 70.6%. Based on these findings, the efficacy of ASD and arthroscopic acromioplasty may be different in rotator cuff repair, and relevant studies comparing their functional effects would provide a better understanding of their differences. In addition, ASD and acromioplasty should be compared with nonacromioplasty [37]. Unfortunately, in our systematic review, ASD treatment was only reported in two of the included studies with different outcome measures; thus, there was no possibility of performing a pooled analysis of ASD. More well-designed studies should be subgrouped into ASD and acromioplasty.
The lesions of long head of the biceps (LHB), including tendinitis and partial tears, are a common source of pain and are generally associated with partial or complete rotator cuff tears, particularly in elderly patients. Tenotomy and tenodesis are widely used treatments of LHB[38]. Shin et al.[27] suggested that tenodesis with suture anchors be performed when the tendon tear involves more than 50% of the tendon thickness and the patient is less than 60 years of age; otherwise, a biceps tenotomy should be performed. However, whether LHB treatment is necessary in rotator cuff repair remains controversial. Shang et al.[39] and Watson et al.[40] concluded that concomitant tenotomy and tenodesis could relieve pain and improve functional outcomes of patients treated with repairable rotator cuff repairs. In contrast, Keong et al.[41] and Pander et al.[42] concluded that the LHB treatments did not positively speed recovery or affect outcomes. Upon comparing the LHB treatments, Godenèche et al.[43] reported that tenodesis renders better outcomes than tenotomy in isolated supraspinatus tears. Nevertheless, Shang et al.[39] found similar outcomes between the two treatments. In our meta-analysis, tenotomy and tenodesis were only reported in three studies, and no significant demographic differences were found between patients with and without acromioplasty. Moreover, the three studies demonstrated that acromioplasty did not significantly improve the clinical outcomes of rotator cuff repair. Thus, we could not assess the effect of concomitant LHB treatment in rotator cuff repair in our study.
Several limitations of our systematic review should be mentioned. First, numerous confounding factors, such as diversity of patient groups, clinical settings, surgical techniques and postoperative rehabilitations, may have affected the therapeutic results and led to potential biases. Second, the degree (tear size and number of tendons) of full-thickness rotator cuff tear was a critical factor affecting clinical outcomes. Two of the included studies[23,27] paid attention to the tear size of < 4 cm or < 3 cm, while the remaining five trials included a combination of all tear sizes. Only one study enrolled patients with an isolated, supraspinatus tendon tear, and the other trials reported two or more tendon tears. Under this circumstance, it is almost impossible to completely stratify the patients and perform generalizable analyses to determine the value of acromioplasty. Third, the outcome measures were not identical in each trial, potentially affecting the current findings of our study. Additionally, objective measures, such as preoperative and postoperative range of motion, strength testing, and radiographic assessment of rotator cuff, were not mentioned; thus, a comprehensive analysis could not be performed. Lastly, the clinical follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 35 months, and eligible studies with long-term follow-ups are required to consolidate the current findings.
Conclusion
In summary, our present study demonstrated that the acromioplasty treatment is significantly superior to nonacromioplasty in shoulder pain relief at 12 months postoperatively and ASES score improvement at the final follow-up in conjunction with rotator cuff repair. However, these significant differences were not clinically relevant, and our meta-analysis included small sample size and limited number of eligible studies. Thus, there were no differences in shoulder function or pain scores for patients undergoing rotator cuff repair with and without acromioplasty. Further high-quality studies with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-ups are needed to clarify this issue.
References
- 1. Armstrong JR. Excision of the acromion in treatment of the supraspinatus syndrome; report of 95 excisions. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1949; 31B(3):436–442. pmid:18148779
- 2. Neer NC. Anterior acromioplasty for the chronic impingement syndrome in the shoulder: A preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972; 54(1):41–50. pmid:5054450
- 3. Gerber C, Catanzaro S, Betz M, Ernstbrunner L. Arthroscopic Correction of the Critical Shoulder Angle Through Lateral Acromioplasty: A Safe Adjunct to Rotator Cuff Repair. Arthroscopy. 2018; 34:771–780. pmid:29100767
- 4. Worland RL, Lee D, Orozco CG, SozaRex F, Keenan J. Correlation of age, acromial morphology, and rotator cuff tear pathology diagnosed by ultrasound in asymptomatic patients. J South Orthop Assoc. 2003; 12(1): 23–26. pmid:12735621
- 5. Maurice B, Carolin S, Nicolas D, Marc B, Bertil B, Dennis L. Correlation of acromial morphology with impingement syndrome and rotator cuff tears. Acta Orthop. 2013; 84(2): 178–183. pmid:23409811
- 6. Ellman H. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression: analysis of one- to three-year results. Arthroscopy. 1987; 3: 173–181. pmid:3675789
- 7. Vitale MA, Arons RR, Hurwitz S, Ahmad CS, Levine WN. The rising incidence of acromioplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92(9):1842–1850. pmid:20686058
- 8. Paloneva J, Lepola V, Äärimaa V, Joukainen A, Ylinen J, Mattila VM. Increasing incidence of rotator cuff repairs- A nationwide registry study in Finland. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015; 16(1):189.
- 9. Ponzio DY, Vanbeek C, Wong JC, Padegimas EM, Anakwenze OA, Getz CL, et al. Profile of Current Opinion on Arthroscopic Acromioplasty: A Video Survey Study. Arthroscopy. 2016; 32(7):1253–1262. pmid:27117824
- 10. Farfaras S, Sernert N, Hallström E, Kartus J. Comparison of open acromioplasty, arthroscopic acromioplasty and physiotherapy in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome: a prospective randomised study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 24(7):2181–2191. pmid:25385527
- 11. Ranalletta M, Rossi LA, Atala NA, Bertona A, Maignon GD, Bongiovanni SL. Arthroscopic in situ repair of partial bursal rotator cuff tears without acromioplasty. Arthroscopy. 2017; 33(7):1294–1298. pmid:28336229
- 12. Freedman KB. The partial-thickness rotator cuff tear: is acromioplasty without repair sufficient?. Am J Sports Med. 2003; 31(2): 257–260.
- 13. Hsu JE, Gorbaty J, Lucas R, Russ SM, Matsen FA 3rd. Treatment of irreparable cuff tears with smoothing of the humeroscapular motion interface without acromioplasty. Int Orthop. 2017; 41(7):1423–1430. pmid:28455737
- 14. Gibbons MC, Singh A, Anakwenze O, Cheng T, Pomerantz M, Schenk S. Histological Evidence of Muscle Degeneration in Advanced Human Rotator Cuff Disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017; 99(3):190–199. pmid:28145949
- 15. Jo CH, Shin WH, Park JW, Shin JS, Kim JE. Degree of tendon degeneration and stage of rotator cuff disease. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017; 25(7):2100–2108. pmid:27896393
- 16. Familiari F, Gonzalez-Zapata A, Iannò B, Galasso O, Gasparini G, Mcfarland EG. Is acromioplasty necessary in the setting of full-thickness rotator cuff tears? A systematic review. J Orthop Traumatol. 2015; 16(3):167–74. pmid:26003837
- 17. Nottage WM. Rotator cuff repair with or without acromioplasty. Arthroscopy. 2003; 19 Suppl 1(10):229.
- 18. Chahal J, Mall N, Macdonald PB, Van Thiel G, Cole BJ, Romeo AA. The role of subacromial decompression in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthroscopy. 2012; 28(5):720–727. pmid:22305327
- 19. Song L, Miao L, Zhang P, Wang WL. Does concomitant acromioplasty facilitate arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears? A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials. Springerplus. 2016; 5(1):685. pmid:27350920
- 20.
Higgins J, Green SE. Cochranehandbookfor systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. (updated March2011). Available from: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/
- 21. Sterne JA, Higgins JP. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Bmj. 2011; 343(5):d4002.
- 22. Gartsman GM, O'Connor DP. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without arthroscopic subacromial decompression: A prospective, randomized study of one-year outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004; 13(4):424–426. pmid:15220883
- 23. MacDonald P, McRae S, Leiter J, Mascarenhas R, Lapner P. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without acromioplasty in the treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(21): 1953–60. pmid:22048089
- 24. Milano G, Grasso A, Salvatore M, Zarelli D, Deriu L, Fabbriciani C. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without subacromial decompression: a prospective randomized study. Arthroscopy. 2007; 23(1):81–88. pmid:17210431
- 25. Tetteh E, Hussey KE, Abrams GD, Gupta AK, Dhawan A, Karas V. A Prospective Randomized Trial of Functional Outcomes Following Rotator Cuff Repair With and Without Acromioplasty. Orthop J Sports Med. 2013; 1(4 Suppl): 2325967113S00101.
- 26. Abrams GD, Gupta AK, Hussey KE, Tetteh ES, Karas V, Bach BR Jr et al. Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears with and without acromioplasty: randomized prospective trial with 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42(6):1296. pmid:24733157
- 27. Shin SJ, Oh JH, Chung SW, Song MH. The efficacy of acromioplasty in the arthroscopic repair of small- to medium-sized rotator cuff tears without acromial spur: prospective comparative study. Arthroscopy. 2012; 28(5):628–635. pmid:22261136
- 28. Mardani-Kivi M, Karimi A, Keyhani S, Hashemi-Motlagh K, Saheb-Ekhtiari K. Rotator cuff repair: is there any role for acromioplasty? Phys Sportsmed. 2016; 44(3):1–4.
- 29. Tashjian RZ, Hung M, Keener JD, Bowen RC, McAllister J, Chen W, et al. Determining the minimal clinically important difference for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog scale measuring pain after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017; 26(1):144–148. pmid:27545048
- 30. Codman E A. Rupture of the supraspinatus tendon. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1938; 231(5974):3–26
- 31. Pedowitz RA, Yamaguchi K, Ahmad CS, Burks RT, Flatow EL, Green A, et al. Optimizing the management of rotator cuff problems. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011; 19(6):368–79. pmid:21628648
- 32. Dal MF, Blache Y, Raison M, Arndt A, Begon M. Distance between rotator cuff footprints and the acromion, coracoacromial ligament, and coracoid process during dynamic arm elevations: Preliminary observations.Manual therapy. 2016; 25:94–99. pmid:27039161
- 33. Deshmukh AV, Perlmutter GS, Zilberfarb JL, Wilson DR. Effect of subacromial decompression on laxity of the acromioclavicular joint: biomechanical testing in a cadaveric model.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004; 13(3):338. pmid:15111906
- 34. Rothenberg A, Gasbarro G, Chlebeck J, Lin A. The Coracoacromial Ligament: Anatomy, Function, and Clinical Significance. Orthop J Sports Med. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017; 5(4): 2325967117703398. pmid:28508008
- 35. Cay N, Tosun O, Işık C, Unal O, Kartal MG, Bozkurt M. Is coracoacromial arch angle a predisposing factor for rotator cuff tears? Diagn Interv Radiol. 2014; 20(6):498–502. pmid:25205023
- 36. Jaeger M, Berndt T, Rühmann O, Lerch S. Patients With Impingement Syndrome With and Without Rotator Cuff Tears Do Well 20 Years After Arthroscopic Subacromial Decompression.Arthroscopy. 2016; 32(3): 409–415. pmid:26507160
- 37. Lerch S, Elki S, Jaeger M, Berndt T. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2016; 28(5):373–91. pmid:27259482
- 38. Chen RE, Voloshin. Long Head of Biceps Injury: Treatment Options and Decision Making. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2018; 26(3):139–144. pmid:30059449
- 39. Shang X, Chen J, Chen S. A meta-analysis comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for treating rotator cuff tears combined with long head of the biceps tendon lesions[J]. Plos One, 2017, 12(10):e0185788. pmid:29016616
- 40. Watson S T, Robbins C B, Bedi A, Carpenter JE, Gagnier JJ, Miller BS. Comparison of Outcomes 1 Year After Rotator Cuff Repair With and Without Concomitant Biceps Surgery. Arthroscopy. 2017; 33(11):1928–1936. pmid:28822640
- 41. Keong MW, Dlt T. Does bicep pathology affect rotator cuff repair outcomes?. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2018; 26(1):2309499018762852.
- 42. Pander P, Sierevelt IN, Pecasse GABM, van Noort A. Irreparable rotator cuff tears: long-term follow-up, five to ten years, of arthroscopic debridement and tenotomy of the long head of the biceps. Int Orthop. 2018:1–6.
- 43. Godenèche A, Kempf JF, Novéjosserand L, Michelet A, Saffarini M, Hannink G, et al. Tenodesis renders better results than tenotomy in repairs of isolated supraspinatus tears with pathologic biceps. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018.