Midterm results of arthroscopic co-planing of the acromioclavicular joint

Sub-Acromioclavicular Decompression Increases the Risk of Postoperative Shoulder Stiffness after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

OBJECTIVE

The sub-acromioclavicular (SAC) decompression is often performed during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. However, the impact of SAC decompression on patients with postoperative shoulder stiffness (POSS) are controversial and unclear. This study is aim to evaluate the impact of additional sub-acromioclavicular (SAC) decompression during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair on the postoperative shoulder stiffness (POSS) in patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined digital data from patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair at a local institution. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score, the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Restricted shoulder mobility occurring within 6 months postoperatively, lasting more than 12 weeks, characterized by a passive forward flexion angle of <120° or an external rotation angle of <30°, with or without associated shoulder pain was identified as POSS. Factors affecting POSS were analyzed by binary logistic regression analysis. The patient-reported outcomes scores were analyzed by generalized estimating equations to examine the impact of SAC decompression.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients met the set criteria and were included in the study. The analysis of binary logistic regression showed that diabetes (p = 0.001) and SAC decompression (p = 0.003) were independent factors for POSS. In the analysis of each follow-up point, only at the 3-month follow-up, the ASES scores (p = 0.003), UCLA scores (p = 0.045), and VAS scores (p = 0.005) showed significant differences between the SAC decompression group and the non-decompression group. For the intergroup comparison, the results showed a significant difference in the ASES scores (β = -4.971, p = 0.008), UCLA scores (β = -1.524, p = 0.019), and VAS scores (β = 0.654, p = 0.010) throughout the study duration between the SAC decompression group and the non-decompression group.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggested that SAC decompression during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair increase the risk of POSS compared with those without the decompression, which indicate surgeons do not perform SAC decompression unless necessary.

[Arthroscopic subacromial decompression]

OBJECTIVE

Coracoacromial ligament release to widen the subacromial space, resection of the anterior undersurface of the acromion and, if needed, caudal exophytes at the acromioclavicular joint.

INDICATIONS

All types of outlet impingement after 3 months of conservative treatment.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Impingement syndrome with instability/muscular imbalance, massive rotator cuff tear, unstable os acromionale, posterior-superior impingement, joint infection, freezing phase of a secondary frozen shoulder.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Lateral decubitus position with traction device for the arm. Diagnostic arthroscopy of the glenohumeral joint via standard portals. With arthroscope moved to the subacromial space, bursectomy, electrosurgical release of coracoacromial ligament, resection of acromial hook through standard posterior portal.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Physiotherapy or self-exercises on postoperative day 1, pain-adapted analgesia to avoid shoulder stiffness.

RESULTS

Several studies present positive long-term results compared to conservative treatment (and open acromioplasty) for partial rotator cuff tears and for elderly patients. With a 20-year follow-up, successful results have been achieved for all patients with isolated impingement syndrome.

Arthroscopic distal clavicle resection in symptomatic acromioclavicular joint arthritis combined with rotator cuff tear: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The treatment of symptomatic acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) injury in the rotator cuff (RC) tear has not been well clarified.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical results between patients who had distal clavicle resection (DCR) and those who did not during RC repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

From August 2008 to December 2009, a total of 56 consecutive patients (58 shoulders) were included. All patients had either a full-thickness or high-grade (>50%) RC tear, ACJ tenderness, arthritic change visible on plain radiographs, and a positive ACJ lidocaine injection test the day before surgery. Patients were randomized into 2 groups: DCR and RC repair (DCR+RCR group) and RC repair only (isolated RCR). Evaluation was performed preoperatively, at 6 months postoperatively, and at a final follow-up a minimum of 24 months postoperatively using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Constant shoulder score, range of motion examination, and pain visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

After simple randomization, 26 shoulders were allocated in the DCR+RCR group, and 32 were placed in the isolated RCR group. Five shoulders in the DCR+RCR group and 6 in the isolated RCR group were excluded from analysis due to loss of follow-up. Therefore, the evaluation was performed for 21 shoulders in the DCR+RCR group and 26 shoulders in the isolated RCR group. The mean follow-up period was 44.2 months in the DCR+RCR group and 44.0 months in the isolated RCR group. There were no differences in age, sex, symptom duration, RC tear size, or preoperative ASES, Constant, and VAS scores between the 2 groups (P > .05). At final follow-up, the ASES, Constant, and VAS scores were significantly improved in both groups (P < .001). There were no differences in ASES, Constant, and VAS scores between the 2 groups at final follow-up (P > .05), and there was no difference in residual ACJ tenderness (7 in the DCR+RCR group and 5 in the isolated RCR group) between the 2 groups (P = .270).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in the clinical evaluations between the combined arthroscopic DCR and RCR group and the isolated RCR group at a minimum 24-month follow-up. Arthroscopic DCR should be carefully considered in patients who have symptomatic ACJ arthritis with RC tears.

A prospective analysis of 179 type 2 superior labrum anterior and posterior repairs: outcomes and factors associated with success and failure

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of type 2 superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) surgical outcomes with prospective data.

PURPOSE

To prospectively analyze the clinical outcomes of the arthroscopic treatment of type 2 SLAP tears in a young, active patient population, and to determine factors associated with treatment success and failure.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Over a 4-year period, 225 patients with a type 2 SLAP tear were prospectively enrolled. Two sports/shoulder-fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons performed repairs with suture anchors and a vertical suture construct. Patients were excluded if they underwent any additional repairs, including rotator cuff repair, labrum repair outside of the SLAP region, biceps tenodesis or tenotomy, or distal clavicle excision. Dependent variables were preoperative and postoperative assessments with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) scores and independent physical examinations. A failure analysis was conducted to determine factors associated with failure: age, mechanism of injury, preoperative outcome scores, and smoking. Failure was defined as revision surgery, mean ASES score below 70, or an inability to return to sports and work duties, which was assessed statistically with the Student t test and stepwise logarithmic regression.

RESULTS

There were 179 of 225 patients who completed the follow-up for the study (80%) at a mean of 40.4 months (range, 26-62 months). The mean preoperative scores (WOSI, 54%; SANE, 50%; ASES, 65) improved postoperatively (WOSI, 82%; SANE, 85%; ASES, 88) (P < .01). The mean postoperative range of motion was 159° of flexion, 151° of abduction, and 51° of external rotation at the side, which was less than the mean preoperative range of motion (164° of flexion, 166° of abduction, and 56° of external rotation at the side). Of the 179 patients, 66 patients (36.8%) met failure criteria. Fifty patients elected revision surgery. Advanced age within the cohort (>36 years) was the only factor associated with a statistically significant increase in the incidence of failure. Those who were deemed failed had a mean age of 39.2 years (range, 29-45 years) versus those who were deemed healed with a mean age of 29.7 years (range, 18-36 years) (P < .001). The relative risk for failure for patients older than 36 years was 3.45 (95% CI, 2.0-4.9).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic SLAP repair provides a clinical and statistically significant improvement in shoulder outcomes. However, a reliable return to the previous activity level is limited; 37% of patients had failure, with a 28% revision rate. Age greater than 36 years was associated with a higher chance of failure. Additional work is necessary to determine the optimal diagnosis, indications, and surgical management for those with SLAP injuries.

Open versus arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint resection: a retrospective comparison study

PURPOSE

The purpose was to compare open and arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) resection.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 103 patients (105 shoulders) who underwent ACJ resection between 2000 and 2005. There were 56 women and 47 men with a mean age of 48 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 51 months (range, 15 to 91 months). Arthroscopic ACJ resection by use of a direct approach was performed in 81 shoulders (group A), and open ACJ resection was performed in 24 shoulders (group B). Results were graded according to pain relief both subjectively and objectively with cross-body adduction testing and direct palpation of the ACJ, subjective shoulder value, Constant score, and improved function.

RESULTS

The Constant scores increased from 50 (range, 34 to 65) to 89 (range, 39 to 100) in group A (P < .0001) and from 46 (range, 22 to 63) to 87 (range, 43 to 100) in group B (P < .0001). There was no statistical difference in the postoperative normalized Constant score between group A and group B (P = .47). Pain with cross-body adduction testing and palpation of the ACJ improved in 76 shoulders (94%) in group A and 22 shoulders (92%) in group B. No patients had signs or symptoms of ACJ anteroposterior instability. Revision ACJ resection was performed in 5 patients (5 shoulders [6.2%]) in group A and 1 shoulder (4.2%) in group B (P = .37). The radiographs of the patients who underwent revision showed that 3 patients (3.7%) from group A had regrowth of the distal clavicle; in addition, 2 patients (2.5%) from group A and 1 patient (4.3%) from group B had incomplete distal clavicle excision.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not show a significant difference in the outcome between arthroscopic and open ACJ resection. Incomplete excision and regrowth of the distal clavicle are the most common causes of revision. Although only the arthroscopic group showed a small percentage of patients (3.7%) with regrowth of the distal clavicle, the number is too small to assume that this complication is the result of the arthroscopic technique only.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Acromioclavicular joint reoperation after arthroscopic subacromial decompression with and without concomitant acromioclavicular surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the reoperation rate on the acromioclavicular (AC) joint after arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASAD) with and without concomitant AC joint surgery and to identify factors related to continued AC joint symptoms.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 1,482 cases without concomitant shoulder pathology that were followed up by physical examination, phone interview, questionnaire, or chart review. Group A, patients who underwent ASAD alone, consisted of 1,091 cases. Group B, patients who underwent ASAD with concomitant AC joint surgery consisting of either co-planing or arthroscopic distal clavicle resection (ADCR), consisted of 391 cases.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients underwent reoperation on the AC joint. The overall reoperation rate was 1.5%, or 22 of 1,482 patients. The index procedure failed in 16 patients from the ASAD group (group A), yielding a reoperation rate of 1.5%. The index procedure failed in 6 patients from the group undergoing ASAD with concomitant AC joint surgery (group B), for a reoperation rate of 1.5%. Reoperation occurred at a mean of 22 months and 8 months for group A and group B, respectively. Overall, 17 of 22 patients (77%) who required AC joint reoperation were either Workers' Compensation (WC) or litigation cases. The reoperation rate was 2.4% for WC patients and 0.8% for non-WC patients. WC status was found to be a statistically significant factor in the rate of reoperation for AC joint symptoms (P < .05). Of the 22 patients, 10 continued to have pain at a mean of 25.9 months (range, 9 to 53 months) after reoperation. Given the similar rates of reoperation, routine AC joint violation by co-planing or ADCR is not recommended during ASAD. Reoperation for continued AC joint symptoms was associated with a nearly 50% rate of continued symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study show that the incidence of reoperation on the AC joint after ASAD with or without concomitant AC joint surgery is small for both groups with a 1.5% rate of reoperation for each group. The incidence of reoperation is lower, at 0.8%, for non-WC cases. In addition, there was a high rate of continued symptoms, with 45% of patients having continued pain after reoperation. Violation of the AC joint during the initial surgery by co-planing or ADCR did not alter the reoperation rate for AC joint symptoms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Surgical treatment of symptomatic acromioclavicular joint problems: a systematic review

Excision of the distal clavicle has become the mainstay of surgical treatment for acromioclavicular joint arthritis and osteolysis refractory to nonoperative management. Surgical options for symptomatic acromioclavicular joint abnormalities refractory to nonoperative treatment are the classic open distal clavicle excision, direct (superior) arthroscopic excision, and indirect (bursal) arthroscopic distal clavicle excision. We asked whether any of these three procedures provided a better result. We systematically reviewed the medical literature (Medline, EMBASE), assigned a level of evidence for available studies, and critically identified the flaws and biases in the studies to provide comparisons between the published reports. We limited the literature review to clinical reports in the English language published in peer-reviewed journals. The literature supports surgical excision, but the reports are all Level III or IV evidence consisting largely of retrospective case series. Arthroscopic distal clavicle resection has provided more "good or excellent" results than has the open procedure, but is comprised of low-level evidence. Distal clavicle resection has provided satisfactory results when combined with other procedures. Simple distal clavicle resection may have worse outcomes when performed after preceding trauma. The published reports of the removal of medial acromial and inferior distal clavicle osteophytes when performing subacromial decompression are conflicting and may increase post-operative acromioclavicular symptoms.

Long-term results of acromioclavicular joint coplaning

PURPOSE

Coplaning removes medial acromial spurs and portions of the distal clavicle with an arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD). Concerns exist that this violates inferior acromioclavicular (AC) ligaments and increases AC joint mobility, resulting in long-term problems. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate 3 cohorts of patients who underwent ASD with various degrees of coplaning and to determine if late AC joint tenderness or reoperation had occurred.

TYPE OF STUDY

Nonrandomized control study.

METHODS

Eighty-one patients undergoing ASD were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 (24) underwent removal of inferior clavicle osteophytes, group 2 (34) had a distal clavicle hemiresection with up to 50% of the articular cartilage removed, and group 3 (23) had complete distal clavicle resection. Radiographs, charts, and arthroscopic videotapes were reviewed to determine the amount of clavicle removed. Follow-up evaluations included Constant-Murley, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), SANE, and Rowe shoulder scores with special attention given to AC joint pain and additional procedures.

RESULTS

The average patient age was 46 years (range, 19 to 81 years) and follow-up was 73 months. At follow-up, the average Constant, ASES, Row, and SANE scores were: for group 1, 97.1, 97.5, 96.9, and 95.8, respectively; for group 2, 95.1, 97.4, 96, and 92.8, respectively; and for group 3, 96.3, 98.3, 96.1, and 95.7. No patient required additional shoulder surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Coplaning did not increase AC joint symptoms, compromise clinical results, or lead to additional surgery at an average follow-up of 6 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series study.

The role of the acromioclavicular joint in impingement syndrome

Although AC pathology usually represents a late manifestation of outlet impingement, it typically presents as a cause of pain that is resistant to nonoperative and operative measures designed to treat purely anterior acromial pathology. The bursitis that occurs with AC joint impingement may be indistinguishable from anterior acromial impingement on clinical presentation; however, physical examination, diagnostic injection, and radiographic evaluation are generally sufficient to establish the diagnosis of AC joint impingement. Nonoperative measures are indicated for the treatment of acute bursitis, although operative intervention may be necessary in cases of large, distally projecting osteophytes in the presence of AC joint degeneration. Acromioclavicular pathology, when present, should be addressed at the time of subacromial decompression, and may involve distal clavicular resection, beveling of the AC joint, or excision of marginal osteophytes. The results of surgery to address the AC contribution to impingement are generally favorable; future investigation may further clarify the role of coplaning and its potential contribution to continued postoperative AC pain and symptomatic instability.