Subacromial Balloon Placement Demonstrates No Advantage Over Debridement in the Treatment of Massive Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: A Dual-Armed Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Over 1000 Patients

Two-Year Follow-up of a Group-Sequential, Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of a Subacromial Balloon Spacer for Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears of the Shoulder (START:REACTS)

BACKGROUND

The best management of irreparable rotator cuff tears remains uncertain, with multiple new techniques introduced over the past 2 decades. Two options for treatment are arthroscopic debridement and biceps tenotomy, or the subacromial balloon spacer. Early trial results favored the former option, but the 2-year results have not yet been reported.

PURPOSE

To report the 2-year follow-up outcomes of the START:REACTS trial, investigating the use of a subacromial balloon spacer for irreparable rotator cuff tears of the shoulder.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

Eligible participants had an irreparable rotator cuff tear, intrusive symptoms requiring surgery, and previous unsuccessful nonoperative care. Participants were randomized 1:1 to debridement of the subacromial space with biceps tenotomy (debridement only) or the same procedure with the addition of the subacromial balloon spacer (debridement with device). The 12-month primary outcome was previously reported; this article presents the 24-month results. Linear regression models were used to analyze the 24-month data.

RESULTS

Recruitment stopped early at the preplanned interim analysis, with 117 participants in the trial. A total of 99 (85%) participants out of 117 were followed up to 24 months. At 24 months, a significant difference in the Oxford Shoulder Score was not found (95% CI, -7.9 to 0.4; P = .08). The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff score (mean difference, -10.1; 95% CI, -19.5 to -0.8; P = .04) and Patient Global Impression of Change (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.8; P = .015) were found to significantly favor debridement only. The EQ-5D-5L (mean difference, -0.009; 95% CI, -0.107 to 0.088; P = .85) and satisfaction scores (odds ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3 to -1.2; P = .14) were not significantly different. Complications were evenly matched between groups over 24 months.

CONCLUSION

Participants continued to show better results in the debridement-only group compared with the group who had debridement with the InSpace balloon. Therefore, we do not recommend the subacromial balloon spacer for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears.

Subacromial balloon spacer improves isokinetic performance in patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tear

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to analyse clinical, functional and shoulder kinematics results using subacromial balloon spacer in nonreparable massive rotator cuff tears. Subacromial balloon spacer was hypothesised to improve shoulder kinematics and increases clinical and functional outcomes scores in nonreparable massive rotator cuff tears.

METHODS

This is a prospective study in massive rotator cuff tears. From October 2021 to October 2022, a total of 127 shoulders suffering massive rotator cuff tears were initially evaluated. All patients were evaluated preoperatively, at 6 and 12 months. Patients' patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) subjective values using visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Spanish Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) version were analysed. We also evaluated objective outcomes: constant score, range of movement and kinematic shoulder analysis (isokinetic test to evaluate internal and external rotation forces). Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS software; continuous variables were presented as means and standard deviations (SDs).

RESULTS

Seventeen nonrepairable massive rotator cuff tears were finally included. Three patients required reverse shoulder arthroplasty before 6 months postoperative. After 1-year follow-up, objective and subjective (PROM) outcome scores and isokinetic measurements improved in 13 patients. Preoperative VAS improved from 6.5 ± 2.1 to 2 ± 1.9 points on average at 1-year follow-up and WORC index from 1603 ± 217.3 to 699 ± 361.6. Constant score from 42.1 ± 13.1 on average and at 1-year follow-up increased to 60.8 ± 14.7. Range of movement also improved in elevation 122.2 ± 39.3 to 166.9 ± 25.8, abduction 120.3 ± 38.6 to 134.6 ± 21.1, external rotation 30.3 ± 19.7 to 86.1 ± 13.8 and internal rotation L4-T12 on average at 1-year follow-up. Isokinetic evaluation showed functional improvement 1 year after implantation. Both internal and external rotation improved compared with their healthy shoulder. External rotation improved from 30.3° ± 19.7° preoperatively to 86.1° ± 13.8° (43.7% in the isokinetic study) and internal rotation from L4 preoperatively to L1 (49.8% in isokinetic study) on average.

CONCLUSION

Among the different alternatives for irreparable rotator cuff injuries surgical treatment, subacromial balloon spacer is an effective alternative in selected patients, both in terms of clinical-functional improvement and short-term isokinetic results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Balloon Spacer Implant Is an "Intermediate Value" Innovation Relative to Partial Repair for Full-Thickness Massive Rotator Cuff Repairs: A Cost-Utility Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-utility of a balloon spacer implant relative to partial repair (PR) for the surgical treatment of full-thickness massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs).

METHODS

A decision-analytic model comparing balloon spacer with PR was developed using data from a prospective, randomized, single-blinded, multicenter-controlled trial of 184 randomized patients. Our model was constructed on the basis of the various event pathways a patient could have after the procedure. The probability that each patient progressed to a given outcome and the quality-adjusted life years (QALY) associated with each outcome were derived from the clinical trial data. Incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR) and incremental net monetary benefit were calculated on the basis of a probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations of 1,000 hypothetical patients progressing through the decision-analytic model. One-way sensitivity and threshold analyses were performed by varying cost, event probability, and QALY estimates.

RESULTS

The balloon spacer had an ICUR of $106,851 (95% confidence interval $96,317-$119,143) relative to PR for surgical treatment of MRCT. Across all patients, the balloon spacer was associated with greater 2-year QALY gain compared with PR (0.20 ± 0.02 for balloon spacer vs 0.18 ± 0.02 for PR), but with substantially greater total 2-year cost ($9,701 ± $939 for balloon spacer vs $6,315 ± $627 for PR). PR was associated with a positive incremental net monetary benefit of $1,802 (95% confidence interval $1,653-$1,951) over balloon spacer at the $50,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with PR, the balloon spacer is an "intermediate-value" innovation for treatment of MRCT over a 2-year postoperative period with an ICUR value that falls within the $50,000 to $150,000 willingness-to-pay threshold.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Recentering the humeral head does not necessarily improve glenohumeral abduction: A cadaveric biomechanical study

PURPOSE

To explore if recentering the humeral head could improve shoulder abduction in shoulders with irreparable massive rotator cuff tears (IMRCTs).

METHODS

Nine fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were used to simulate the intact condition and IMRCTs as controls. Four 'recenter' interventions were then sequentially applied: subacromial interposition (SI) using 4- and 8-mm spacers and superior capsule reconstruction (SCR) using two- and four-layer fascia lata grafts. Dynamic biomechanical experiments were performed for each condition. The primary outcomes were glenohumeral abduction angle (GAA). The secondary outcomes were acromiohumeral distance (AHD) and subacromial contact pressure.

RESULTS

In the intact condition, the GAA was significantly greater compared to the IMRCT condition at most deltoid force levels (p < 0.05 for all except at 80 N). IMRCT significantly increased maximum contact pressure (MCP) compared to intact (Δ +0.09 MPa, p = 0.029). For recentering interventions, neither SI nor SCR improved GAA (p > 0.05). The 8-mm spacer and four-layer SCR condition significantly increased MCP compared to the intact condition (Δ +0.22 MPa, p = 0.048, Δ +0.24 MPa, p = 0.012, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Both SCR and SI could effectively recenter the humeral head, but neither technique improved shoulder abduction, with both even significantly increasing subacromial contact pressures. These findings suggest that surgical goals focusing solely on recentering humeral head may need re-evaluation, particularly, for patients with high functional demands on shoulder abduction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Shoulder balloon spacer for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears results in significant improvements

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of balloon implantation in patients with irreparable supraspinatus tears alone or in combination with other rotator cuff (RC) tendon tears and the effect of several covariables, such as age, gender, status of the long head biceps, with or without tendon repair and regardless the number of tendon involved.

METHODS

Patients enrolled from 'San Carlo' Hospital of Potenza (Italy, IT), from January 2012 to September 2014, underwent arthroscopic implantation of shoulder balloon by a single surgeon, and followed for 3 years. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Constant score (CS) were administered pre-, post-operatively at 12 months, and then annually. Patients were classified on the basis of the number of tendons involved in the tears and treatment performed, considering the reparability of the tendons themselves. Gleno-humeral joint osteoarthrosis (OA) was evaluated through shoulder radiographs and classified according to the Samilson-Prieto classification, at the first examination and at the final follow-up. Statistical improvements were evaluated using a variance model (least-squares means) and a T distribution test for the evaluation between different treatment groups.

RESULTS

A total of 61 procedures were performed, and eight patients were lost during follow-up. The mean baseline CS was 30.2 ± 15.4 with statistically significant improvement, respectively, at 1-, 2- and 3-year follow-up to 69.3 ± 4.2, 74.6 ± 3.6 and 69.7 ± 5.1 respectively. ASES score at baseline was 22.5 ± 10.9, with a statistically significant improvement to 69.7 ± 9.2, 68 ± 17.8 and 71.2 ± 16.6 at 1-, 2- and 3-year follow-up, respectively. Tenotomy or absence of long head biceps at presentation did not influence results (n.s.), with no difference according to gender and age. At final follow-up, 24 patients (43.9%) showed progression of glenohumeral OA. One patient required secondary surgery for shoulder replacement after 18 months for persistent pain and one patient required implant removal following post-operative laser treatment.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic rotator cuff tears repair with subacromial spacer balloon implantation showed statistically significant clinical and functional improvement at 3-year follow-up. Patients treated with combined partial repair and subacromial spacer balloon implantation experienced good results independent of gender, age, type of tear and long-head biceps tendon status. The risks related to this procedure appear to be minimal.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Subacromial Balloon Spacer for the Massive Irreparable Cuff Tear

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the review is to provide an updated overview of a relatively novel but controversial surgical device (InSpace subacromial balloon, Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI) that can be readily incorporated into the armamentarium of the shoulder surgeon. The authors review the critical clinical and surgical decision-making aspects of InSpace. A recommended surgical technique and rehabilitation protocol are outlined. The authors present a nuanced view of the balloon spacer in the continuum of care of the irreparable rotator cuff tear.

RECENT FINDINGS

Within the last year, two Level I clinical trials have been published, and the data from these studies offer conflicting evidence regarding the utility of the subacromial balloon spacer. The current review contrasts these two recent studies and offers a framework by which the available evidence can be practically understood with respect to clinical decision-making. The literature currently supports a limited indication for use of InSpace: the elderly, low-demand patient with preserved active range of motion with an operatively irreparable, posterosuperior rotator cuff tear with an intact subscapularis. The InSpace subacromial balloon spacer is a simple device that can yield substantial improvements in clinical outcomes among a subset of patients with irreparable rotator cuff tears. InSpace is not a panacea for the complex, irreparable rotator cuff tear. Individualized decision-making is necessary in this diverse and challening patient population.