Arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty: A prospective, randomized, blinded study

Mark J. Spangehl, Robert H. Hawkins, Robert G. McCormack, Richard L. Loomer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

47 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine whether arthroscopic acromioplasty is equivalent or superior to open acromioplasty, in a prospective, randomized, controlled, blinded clinical trial. Seventy-one patients with a clinical diagnosis of impingement syndrome were randomized to arthroscopic or open acromioplasty. Nine were excluded because of full-thickness rotator cuff tears diagnosed after randomization. Sixty-two patients (49 men and 13 women) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months (mean, 25 months) were included. The patient groups were virtually identical with regard to duration of symptoms, shoulder functional demands, age, sex, hand dominance, mechanism of onset, range of motion, strength, joint laxity, and the presence of a compensation claim. Patients were prospectively randomized to arthroscopic or open acromioplasty after stratification for age (>50 years), associated ligamentous laxity, and the presence of an ongoing compensation claim. The main outcome measure was visual analog scales for pain and function. Also recorded were UCLA shoulder scores and visual analog scales for postoperative improvement, patient satisfaction, and a variety of clinical measures. An independent blinded examiner assessed all patients. There was no significant difference between open and arthroscopic acromioplasty in visual analog scales for postoperative improvement (P = .30), patient satisfaction (P = .94), UCLA shoulder score (P = .69), or strength (P = .62); however, open was superior to arthroscopic acromioplasty for pain and function (P = .01). Overall, 67% of patients had a good or excellent result. This increased to 87% when unsettled compensation claims were excluded. Repeat (open) acromioplasty was performed in 5 patients in the unsuccessful arthroscopic group without improvement. Open acromioplasty was equivalent to arthroscopic acromioplasty for UCLA scores and patient satisfaction. For pain and function, both gave significant improvement but the open technique may be superior. Unsettled compensation is a predictor of poor outcome.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)101-107
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Volume11
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Patient Satisfaction
Visual Analog Scale
Joint Instability
Pain
Pain Measurement
Random Allocation
Articular Range of Motion
Randomized Controlled Trials
Hand
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty : A prospective, randomized, blinded study. / Spangehl, Mark J.; Hawkins, Robert H.; McCormack, Robert G.; Loomer, Richard L.

In: Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Vol. 11, No. 2, 04.2002, p. 101-107.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Spangehl, Mark J. ; Hawkins, Robert H. ; McCormack, Robert G. ; Loomer, Richard L. / Arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty : A prospective, randomized, blinded study. In: Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2002 ; Vol. 11, No. 2. pp. 101-107.
@article{dc740ebdc78b456196351573a92799ac,
title = "Arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty: A prospective, randomized, blinded study",
abstract = "The purpose of this study is to determine whether arthroscopic acromioplasty is equivalent or superior to open acromioplasty, in a prospective, randomized, controlled, blinded clinical trial. Seventy-one patients with a clinical diagnosis of impingement syndrome were randomized to arthroscopic or open acromioplasty. Nine were excluded because of full-thickness rotator cuff tears diagnosed after randomization. Sixty-two patients (49 men and 13 women) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months (mean, 25 months) were included. The patient groups were virtually identical with regard to duration of symptoms, shoulder functional demands, age, sex, hand dominance, mechanism of onset, range of motion, strength, joint laxity, and the presence of a compensation claim. Patients were prospectively randomized to arthroscopic or open acromioplasty after stratification for age (>50 years), associated ligamentous laxity, and the presence of an ongoing compensation claim. The main outcome measure was visual analog scales for pain and function. Also recorded were UCLA shoulder scores and visual analog scales for postoperative improvement, patient satisfaction, and a variety of clinical measures. An independent blinded examiner assessed all patients. There was no significant difference between open and arthroscopic acromioplasty in visual analog scales for postoperative improvement (P = .30), patient satisfaction (P = .94), UCLA shoulder score (P = .69), or strength (P = .62); however, open was superior to arthroscopic acromioplasty for pain and function (P = .01). Overall, 67{\%} of patients had a good or excellent result. This increased to 87{\%} when unsettled compensation claims were excluded. Repeat (open) acromioplasty was performed in 5 patients in the unsuccessful arthroscopic group without improvement. Open acromioplasty was equivalent to arthroscopic acromioplasty for UCLA scores and patient satisfaction. For pain and function, both gave significant improvement but the open technique may be superior. Unsettled compensation is a predictor of poor outcome.",
author = "Spangehl, {Mark J.} and Hawkins, {Robert H.} and McCormack, {Robert G.} and Loomer, {Richard L.}",
year = "2002",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1067/mse.2002.120915",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "101--107",
journal = "Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery",
issn = "1058-2746",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty

T2 - A prospective, randomized, blinded study

AU - Spangehl, Mark J.

AU - Hawkins, Robert H.

AU - McCormack, Robert G.

AU - Loomer, Richard L.

PY - 2002/4

Y1 - 2002/4

N2 - The purpose of this study is to determine whether arthroscopic acromioplasty is equivalent or superior to open acromioplasty, in a prospective, randomized, controlled, blinded clinical trial. Seventy-one patients with a clinical diagnosis of impingement syndrome were randomized to arthroscopic or open acromioplasty. Nine were excluded because of full-thickness rotator cuff tears diagnosed after randomization. Sixty-two patients (49 men and 13 women) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months (mean, 25 months) were included. The patient groups were virtually identical with regard to duration of symptoms, shoulder functional demands, age, sex, hand dominance, mechanism of onset, range of motion, strength, joint laxity, and the presence of a compensation claim. Patients were prospectively randomized to arthroscopic or open acromioplasty after stratification for age (>50 years), associated ligamentous laxity, and the presence of an ongoing compensation claim. The main outcome measure was visual analog scales for pain and function. Also recorded were UCLA shoulder scores and visual analog scales for postoperative improvement, patient satisfaction, and a variety of clinical measures. An independent blinded examiner assessed all patients. There was no significant difference between open and arthroscopic acromioplasty in visual analog scales for postoperative improvement (P = .30), patient satisfaction (P = .94), UCLA shoulder score (P = .69), or strength (P = .62); however, open was superior to arthroscopic acromioplasty for pain and function (P = .01). Overall, 67% of patients had a good or excellent result. This increased to 87% when unsettled compensation claims were excluded. Repeat (open) acromioplasty was performed in 5 patients in the unsuccessful arthroscopic group without improvement. Open acromioplasty was equivalent to arthroscopic acromioplasty for UCLA scores and patient satisfaction. For pain and function, both gave significant improvement but the open technique may be superior. Unsettled compensation is a predictor of poor outcome.

AB - The purpose of this study is to determine whether arthroscopic acromioplasty is equivalent or superior to open acromioplasty, in a prospective, randomized, controlled, blinded clinical trial. Seventy-one patients with a clinical diagnosis of impingement syndrome were randomized to arthroscopic or open acromioplasty. Nine were excluded because of full-thickness rotator cuff tears diagnosed after randomization. Sixty-two patients (49 men and 13 women) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months (mean, 25 months) were included. The patient groups were virtually identical with regard to duration of symptoms, shoulder functional demands, age, sex, hand dominance, mechanism of onset, range of motion, strength, joint laxity, and the presence of a compensation claim. Patients were prospectively randomized to arthroscopic or open acromioplasty after stratification for age (>50 years), associated ligamentous laxity, and the presence of an ongoing compensation claim. The main outcome measure was visual analog scales for pain and function. Also recorded were UCLA shoulder scores and visual analog scales for postoperative improvement, patient satisfaction, and a variety of clinical measures. An independent blinded examiner assessed all patients. There was no significant difference between open and arthroscopic acromioplasty in visual analog scales for postoperative improvement (P = .30), patient satisfaction (P = .94), UCLA shoulder score (P = .69), or strength (P = .62); however, open was superior to arthroscopic acromioplasty for pain and function (P = .01). Overall, 67% of patients had a good or excellent result. This increased to 87% when unsettled compensation claims were excluded. Repeat (open) acromioplasty was performed in 5 patients in the unsuccessful arthroscopic group without improvement. Open acromioplasty was equivalent to arthroscopic acromioplasty for UCLA scores and patient satisfaction. For pain and function, both gave significant improvement but the open technique may be superior. Unsettled compensation is a predictor of poor outcome.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036517888&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036517888&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1067/mse.2002.120915

DO - 10.1067/mse.2002.120915

M3 - Article

C2 - 11988719

AN - SCOPUS:0036517888

VL - 11

SP - 101

EP - 107

JO - Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

JF - Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

SN - 1058-2746

IS - 2

ER -