» Articles » PMID: 30846616

Surgery for Shoulder Impingement: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials

Overview
Journal CMAJ Open
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2019 Mar 9
PMID 30846616
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Shoulder impingement is one of the most common nontraumatic upper limb causes of disability in adults. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of surgical intervention in comparison with nonoperative or sham treatments in patients with shoulder impingement in terms of both pain and functional outcomes.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers independently screened MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials published from 1946 to July 19, 2018. A risk-of-bias assessment was conducted for all included studies, and outcomes were pooled using a random effects model. The primary outcome was improvement in pain up to 2 years. Secondary outcomes were functional outcome scores reported in the short term (≤ 1 yr) and long term (≥ 2 yr). Heterogeneity was assessed using the statistic. Functional outcome scores were presented along with minimal clinically important differences to provide clinical context for findings.

Results: Thirteen randomized controlled trials ( = 1062 patients) were included in this review. Eligible patients had a mean age of 48 (standard deviation ± 4) years and 45% were men. The pooled treatment effect of surgical intervention for shoulder impingement did not demonstrate any benefit to surgery with respect to pain relief (mean difference -0.07, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.26) or short-term functional outcomes (standardized mean difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.27 to 0.08). Surgical intervention did result in a small statistically significant but clinically unimportant improvement in long-term functional outcomes (standardized mean difference 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.41).

Interpretation: Evidence suggests surgical intervention has little, if any, benefit for impingement pathology in the middle-aged patient. Further research is required to identify those patients who will reliably benefit from surgical intervention as well as optimal conservative treatment strategies.

Citing Articles

Shoulder Musculoskeletal Disorder Rehabilitation Using a Robotic Device Based on Electromyography (EMG) Biofeedback: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Lavalliere M, Tremblay M, Ojardias E, Turpin M, Perrochon A, Rigoard P Medicina (Kaunas). 2025; 61(2).

PMID: 40005389 PMC: 11857678. DOI: 10.3390/medicina61020272.


Challenges and opportunities in testing sensorimotor processing with tendon vibration and transcranial magnetic stimulation in subacromial impingement syndrome: A case series.

Bouchard E, Lauzier L, Boudier-Reveret M, Munger L, Ketounou K, Perron M PLoS One. 2024; 19(7):e0305545.

PMID: 38990906 PMC: 11239058. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305545.


Arthroscopic subacromial decompression improved outcomes in situationally depressed patients compared to clinically depressed or nondepressed patients.

Greif D, Shaikh H, Neumanitis J, Ramirez G, Maloney M, Bronstein R JSES Int. 2024; 8(2):304-309.

PMID: 38464455 PMC: 10920123. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2023.11.012.


Home training with or without joint mobilization compared to no treatment: a randomized controlled trial.

Eliason A, Werner S, Engstrom B, Harringe M J Phys Ther Sci. 2022; 34(2):153-160.

PMID: 35221520 PMC: 8860700. DOI: 10.1589/jpts.34.153.


A Targeted Approach to Post-Mastectomy Pain and Persistent Pain following Breast Cancer Treatment.

Chang P, Asher A, Smith S Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13(20).

PMID: 34680339 PMC: 8534110. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13205191.


References
1.
Brox J, Gjengedal E, Uppheim G, Bohmer A, Brevik J, Ljunggren A . Arthroscopic surgery versus supervised exercises in patients with rotator cuff disease (stage II impingement syndrome): a prospective, randomized, controlled study in 125 patients with a 2 1/2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999; 8(2):102-11. DOI: 10.1016/s1058-2746(99)90001-0. View

2.
Tingart M, Bathis H, Lefering R, Bouillon B, Tiling T . [Constant Score and Neer Score. A comparison of score results and subjective patient satisfaction]. Unfallchirurg. 2002; 104(11):1048-54. DOI: 10.1007/s001130170019. View

3.
Luime J, Koes B, Hendriksen I, Burdorf A, Verhagen A, Miedema H . Prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain in the general population; a systematic review. Scand J Rheumatol. 2004; 33(2):73-81. DOI: 10.1080/03009740310004667. View

4.
Schunemann H, Guyatt G . Commentary--goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from?. Health Serv Res. 2005; 40(2):593-7. PMC: 1361157. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00374.x. View

5.
Ostor A, Richards C, Prevost A, Speed C, Hazleman B . Diagnosis and relation to general health of shoulder disorders presenting to primary care. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005; 44(6):800-5. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keh598. View