Acromioplasty combined with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair can reduce the risk of reoperation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Background: Whether to perform acromioplasty in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) is controversial, and the optimal surgical approach for rotator cuff tear repair is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the reoperation rate, retear rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of ARCR with those of ARCR combined with acromioplasty (ARCR-A).

Methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature dated between database inception and 4 December 2023. The primary outcomes of this study were the reoperation rate and the retear rate. The secondary outcomes were PROs, including the visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) score, the Constant score and the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) score. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by using the risk of bias assessment tool. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. Fixed (I² <50%) or random (I² ≥50%) effects models were applied to calculate the effect size.

Results: Meta-analysis revealed that ARCR-A had a lower reoperation rate (OR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.15-0.85, p = 0.02), but the difference in the retear rate between ARCR-A and ARCR was not significant (p = 0.25). In type 2 acromion patients, the reoperation rate was not significantly different between ARCR and ARCR-A (p = 0.12), but, for type 3 acromion patients, the retear rate was lower for ARCR-A than for ARCR (OR = 0.12, 95%CI: 0.01-0.94, p = 0.04). There were statistically significant differences in the 6-month postoperative Constant scores (p < 0.001), VAS pain scores (p = 0.003) 12-month postoperative ASES scores (p = 0.02) and 24-month postoperative WORC scores (p = 0.04), but these differences were not clinically significant.

Conclusions: Combining ARCR with acromioplasty can reduce the rate of reoperation, especially in patients with type 3 acromion, but it provides no clinically important change in the retear rate and postoperative PRO compared with ARCR.