Arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty

a meta-analysis.

A. David Davis, Sanjeev Kakar, Chris Moros, Elizabeth Krall Kaye, Anthony A. Schepsis, Ilya Voloshin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To address persisting controversy in the literature concerning the efficacy of arthroscopic compared to open acromioplasty, a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the treatment effect after both approaches. HYPOTHESIS: The final clinical outcomes will be the same after both open and arthroscopic acromioplasty. However, the arthroscopic technique results in faster recovery and less postoperative morbidity as reflected by faster return to work and decreased hospital stays. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We performed our search of published English language literature using PubMed. We also searched the proceedings from 4 major orthopaedic meetings convened from 2000 to 2007. Furthermore, the reference sections of all relevant articles were reviewed for pertinent studies and presentations. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria that directly compared arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty with minimum follow-up of 1 year. The analysis focused on 1-year clinical outcome and included comparison of the objective 100-point score, hospital stay, time until return to work, operative time, and complications. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in clinical outcomes or complications for the 2 groups. However, open acromioplasty was associated with longer hospital stays (2.3 days, P = .05) and a greater length in time until return to work (65.1 days) compared with the arthroscopic technique (48.6 days) (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic and open acromioplasty have equivalent ultimate clinical outcomes, operative times, and low complication rates. However, arthroscopic acromioplasty results in faster return to work and fewer hospital inpatient days compared with the open technique.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)613-618
Number of pages6
JournalThe American journal of sports medicine
Volume38
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Return to Work
Meta-Analysis
Length of Stay
Operative Time
PubMed
Orthopedics
Inpatients
Language
Morbidity
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Davis, A. D., Kakar, S., Moros, C., Kaye, E. K., Schepsis, A. A., & Voloshin, I. (2010). Arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty: a meta-analysis. The American journal of sports medicine, 38(3), 613-618.

Arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty : a meta-analysis. / Davis, A. David; Kakar, Sanjeev; Moros, Chris; Kaye, Elizabeth Krall; Schepsis, Anthony A.; Voloshin, Ilya.

In: The American journal of sports medicine, Vol. 38, No. 3, 03.2010, p. 613-618.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Davis, AD, Kakar, S, Moros, C, Kaye, EK, Schepsis, AA & Voloshin, I 2010, 'Arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty: a meta-analysis.', The American journal of sports medicine, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 613-618.
Davis AD, Kakar S, Moros C, Kaye EK, Schepsis AA, Voloshin I. Arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty: a meta-analysis. The American journal of sports medicine. 2010 Mar;38(3):613-618.
Davis, A. David ; Kakar, Sanjeev ; Moros, Chris ; Kaye, Elizabeth Krall ; Schepsis, Anthony A. ; Voloshin, Ilya. / Arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty : a meta-analysis. In: The American journal of sports medicine. 2010 ; Vol. 38, No. 3. pp. 613-618.
@article{632d70eac9a94199b8c61070ce21a3ab,
title = "Arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty: a meta-analysis.",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: To address persisting controversy in the literature concerning the efficacy of arthroscopic compared to open acromioplasty, a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the treatment effect after both approaches. HYPOTHESIS: The final clinical outcomes will be the same after both open and arthroscopic acromioplasty. However, the arthroscopic technique results in faster recovery and less postoperative morbidity as reflected by faster return to work and decreased hospital stays. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We performed our search of published English language literature using PubMed. We also searched the proceedings from 4 major orthopaedic meetings convened from 2000 to 2007. Furthermore, the reference sections of all relevant articles were reviewed for pertinent studies and presentations. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria that directly compared arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty with minimum follow-up of 1 year. The analysis focused on 1-year clinical outcome and included comparison of the objective 100-point score, hospital stay, time until return to work, operative time, and complications. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in clinical outcomes or complications for the 2 groups. However, open acromioplasty was associated with longer hospital stays (2.3 days, P = .05) and a greater length in time until return to work (65.1 days) compared with the arthroscopic technique (48.6 days) (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic and open acromioplasty have equivalent ultimate clinical outcomes, operative times, and low complication rates. However, arthroscopic acromioplasty results in faster return to work and fewer hospital inpatient days compared with the open technique.",
author = "Davis, {A. David} and Sanjeev Kakar and Chris Moros and Kaye, {Elizabeth Krall} and Schepsis, {Anthony A.} and Ilya Voloshin",
year = "2010",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "613--618",
journal = "American Journal of Sports Medicine",
issn = "0363-5465",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty

T2 - a meta-analysis.

AU - Davis, A. David

AU - Kakar, Sanjeev

AU - Moros, Chris

AU - Kaye, Elizabeth Krall

AU - Schepsis, Anthony A.

AU - Voloshin, Ilya

PY - 2010/3

Y1 - 2010/3

N2 - BACKGROUND: To address persisting controversy in the literature concerning the efficacy of arthroscopic compared to open acromioplasty, a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the treatment effect after both approaches. HYPOTHESIS: The final clinical outcomes will be the same after both open and arthroscopic acromioplasty. However, the arthroscopic technique results in faster recovery and less postoperative morbidity as reflected by faster return to work and decreased hospital stays. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We performed our search of published English language literature using PubMed. We also searched the proceedings from 4 major orthopaedic meetings convened from 2000 to 2007. Furthermore, the reference sections of all relevant articles were reviewed for pertinent studies and presentations. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria that directly compared arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty with minimum follow-up of 1 year. The analysis focused on 1-year clinical outcome and included comparison of the objective 100-point score, hospital stay, time until return to work, operative time, and complications. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in clinical outcomes or complications for the 2 groups. However, open acromioplasty was associated with longer hospital stays (2.3 days, P = .05) and a greater length in time until return to work (65.1 days) compared with the arthroscopic technique (48.6 days) (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic and open acromioplasty have equivalent ultimate clinical outcomes, operative times, and low complication rates. However, arthroscopic acromioplasty results in faster return to work and fewer hospital inpatient days compared with the open technique.

AB - BACKGROUND: To address persisting controversy in the literature concerning the efficacy of arthroscopic compared to open acromioplasty, a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the treatment effect after both approaches. HYPOTHESIS: The final clinical outcomes will be the same after both open and arthroscopic acromioplasty. However, the arthroscopic technique results in faster recovery and less postoperative morbidity as reflected by faster return to work and decreased hospital stays. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We performed our search of published English language literature using PubMed. We also searched the proceedings from 4 major orthopaedic meetings convened from 2000 to 2007. Furthermore, the reference sections of all relevant articles were reviewed for pertinent studies and presentations. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria that directly compared arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty with minimum follow-up of 1 year. The analysis focused on 1-year clinical outcome and included comparison of the objective 100-point score, hospital stay, time until return to work, operative time, and complications. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in clinical outcomes or complications for the 2 groups. However, open acromioplasty was associated with longer hospital stays (2.3 days, P = .05) and a greater length in time until return to work (65.1 days) compared with the arthroscopic technique (48.6 days) (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic and open acromioplasty have equivalent ultimate clinical outcomes, operative times, and low complication rates. However, arthroscopic acromioplasty results in faster return to work and fewer hospital inpatient days compared with the open technique.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953467171&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953467171&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 613

EP - 618

JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine

SN - 0363-5465

IS - 3

ER -