PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8086015

Open vs. arthroscopic acromioplasty: a prospective, randomized study.

R A Sachs·M L Stone·S Devine
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Between May 1988 and May 1990, 44 patients with Stage II impingement were randomized into open and arthroscopic treatment groups. Forty-one patients were available for final follow-up in May 1991: 22 in the open group, 19 in the arthroscopic group. Comparisons of pain, function, motion, and strength were made preoperatively and at 2, 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks postoperatively. Final analysis showed that the main benefits of arthroscopic acromioplasty were evident in the first 3 months postoperatively. Arthroscopic patients regained flexion and strength more rapidly than did open patients, had shorter hospitalizations, used less narcotics, and returned more quickly to both work and activities of daily living. By 3 months postoperatively, open patients tended to "catch up" with arthroscopic patients, and further recovery was equivalent. In both groups, full recovery took at least 1 year for the majority of patients and in both groups at 1 year > 90% of patients achieved a satisfactory result. Because of its medical and economic advantages for both the patient and the health-care system, we conclude that arthroscopic acromioplasty should become the procedure of choice for patients with impingement syndrome refractory to conservative treatment.

Explore related subjects

Acromioclavicular JointActivities of Daily LivingAdultAgedArthroplastyArthroscopyFemaleFibrosisFollow-Up StudiesHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPostoperative PainPostoperative CareProspective StudiesRange of Motion, ArticularShoulder JointTendinopathyTendonsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeClinical TrialComparative StudyJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R A Sachs, M L Stone, S Devine. 1994. Open vs. arthroscopic acromioplasty: a prospective, randomized study.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-8063(05)80106-9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Shoulder function: the perfect compromise between mobility and stability.

Shoulder function is a compromise between mobility and stability. Its large mobility is based on the structure of the glenohumeral joint and simultaneous motion of all segments of the shoulder girdle. This requires fine-tuned muscle coordination. Given the joint's mobility, stability is mainly based on active muscle control with only a minor role for the glenohumeral capsule, labrum and ligaments. In this review factors influencing stability and mobility and their consequences for strength are discussed, with special attention to the effects of morphology, muscle function and sensory information.

Acromioclavicular Joint↗
PubMed2007

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.

Acromioclavicular Joint↗
PubMed2007

Treatment of grade III acromioclavicular joint injuries: a systematic review.

Although nonoperative treatment is considered the standard of care for the treatment of Grade I and II acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries, the treatment of Grade III injuries is controversial. There are as many methods of nonoperative treatment as there are for operative stabilization. Most of the literature represents Level IV evidence with very few Level II and III studies upon which to base decisions. A systematic review of the English-language literature was performed to determine if Grade III AC joint separations are best treated operatively or nonoperatively. Based on limited low-evidence, nonoperative treatment was deemed more appropriate than traditional nonoperative treatments because the results of the latter were not clearly better and were associated with higher complication rates, longer convalescence, and longer time away from work and sport.

Acromioclavicular Joint↗