Systematic Reviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Orthop. May 18, 2017; 8(5): 424-430
Published online May 18, 2017. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i5.424
Table 1 PICO search strategy
PopulationPatients with radiographically confirmed symptomatic tendinitis calcarea of the shoulder (search terms: Shoulder joint, rotator cuff, shoulder, supraspinatus, infraspinatus, subscapular or teres, impingement syndrome, tendinopathy, tendonitis or tendinitis, tendinosis, calcinosis, calcifying, calcification, calcified, calcific, calcarea)
InterventionSurgery (search terms: Surgery, surgical, orthopaedic surgery, shoulder surgery, acromioplasty, debridement, bursectomy, arthroscopic, Neer)
ComparisonSurgery (search terms: Surgery, surgical, orthopaedic surgery, shoulder surgery, acromioplasty, debridement, bursectomy, arthroscopic, Neer)
OutcomeFunctional and clinical outcome
LimitsLanguage: English, German, Dutch Publication year: 1996-2016 Human
Table 2 Characteristics of the included studies
Ref.Study design (LoE)PopulationMean age (range)Duration of symptoms in months (range)InterventionsOutcome measuresFindings
BaselineFollow-up
Rubenthaler et al[10]RCT (II)3851.1 (-)-Arthroscopic debridement + acromioplasty vs Open debridement + acromioplastyPatte score, VAS, CMSNo significant baseline differences16 mo: CMS: 86.0 vs 85.3 (NS) VAS: 1.4 vs 1.8 (NS) Patte score: 84.4 vs 84.6 (NS)
Clement et al[11]RCT (II)8049 (32-75)6.2 (-)Arthroscopic debridement + acromioplasty vs arthroscopic debridementVAS, DASH, CMS, SF-12No significant baseline differences6 wk: CMS: 62.2 vs 64.1 (NS) DASH: 24.5 vs 24.0 (NS) VAS: 4.4 vs 4.5 (NS) SF-12: 45.7 vs 44.3 (NS) 12 mo: CMS: 82.4 vs 77.5 (NS) DASH: 14.5 vs 14.0 (NS) VAS: 1.6 vs 2.5 (NS) SF-12: 43.0 vs 42.5 (NS)
Hofstee et al[12]Quasi-RCT (III)4052.3 (41-6214.5 (6-36)Arthroscopic debridement + acromioplasty vs arthroscopic debridementDASH, VAS, satisfaction, ROMNo significant baseline differences36 mo: DASH: 3.14 vs 3.04 (NS) VAS: 4.3 vs 4.2 satisfied, yes: 80% vs 75%
Marder et al[13]Retrospective case-control study (III)5044 (27-67)13 (-)Arthroscopic debridement vs arthroscopic debridement + acromioplastyQuickDASH, RTW, UCLANo significant baseline differences6 wk: RTW: 60% vs 20% (P = 0.004) 5 yr: QuickDASH: 6.3 vs 11.1 (NS) VAS: not well recorded UCLA: 32.0 vs 32.4 (NS)
Tillander et al[14]Matched pair analysis (III)5050 (40-67)66 (12-216)Arthroscopic acromioplasty in patients with vs without CTCMS, satisfaction, radiologicalNo significant baseline differences24 mo: CMS: 78 vs 79 (NS) Satisfaction, yes: 72% vs 80% (NS)
Maier et al[15]Comparative cohort study (III)3648.9 (29-70)35.2 (9-84)Open debridement vs open debridement + acromioplastyCMSNo significant baseline differences34 mo: CMS: 74.9 vs 73.4 (NS)
Table 3 Methodological quality scores of the individual included randomized controlled trial’s and qausi-randomized controlled trial
Ref.Adequate randomization?Allocation concealment?Blinding patients?Blinding caregiver?Blinding outcome assessors?Incomplete outcome data addressed? dropoutsIncomplete outcome data? ITT-analysis?No selective outcome reporting?
Rubenthaler et al[10]+++-?+-+
Clement et al[11]+++-++-+
Hofstee et al[12]--?-?+-+
Table 4 Methodological quality scores of the individual included comparative cohort studies
Ref.Selection (max = ****)Comparability (max = **)Exposure (max = ***)
Marder et al[13]********
Tillander et al[14]*********
Maier et al[15]********