Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 443–448 | Cite as

Predictive value of preoperative clinical examination for subacromial decompression in impingement syndrome

  • Thomas Kappe
  • Kevin Knappe
  • Mohammed Elsharkawi
  • Heiko Reichel
  • Balkan Cakir
Shoulder
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

Subacromial decompression is the standard surgical treatment of subacromial impingement syndrome. Unsatisfactory results have been reported for concomitant lesions as well as inadequate diagnosis. We sought to determine the predictive value of the preoperative examination for the results of arthroscopic subacromial decompression in impingement syndrome.

Methods

Forty-nine shoulder joints in 47 patients receiving arthroscopic subacromial decompression were prospectively followed for a mean 3.7 ± 0.4 years. Prior to surgery, the impingement tests according to Neer, Hawkins–Kennedy (in the neutral as well as abducted position), and the Jobe test (empty can position) were evaluated as well as the presence of a painful arc. The association between the presence of these sings, success of the operation, and improvement in Constant scores as well as WORC indices was analysed.

Results

Pre- to postoperative improvement in Constant scores as well as WORC indices was greater in case of a positive test result for every test studied. With the numbers available, significant greater improvements in Constant scores were observed only for patients with a positive Hawkins–Kennedy sign in the neutral position, Neer and Jobe tests, compared to patients with negative signs, respectively. No significant differences were observed for the improvement in WORC indices. Patients with at least four positive tests out of the five studied had greater improvement in Constant scores than patients with three or less positive test results. Five patients went on to receive subsequent shoulder surgery. There was no association between the necessity for revision surgery and the presence or absence of impingement signs.

Conclusion

The impingement tests according to Hawkins–Kennedy, Neer, and Jobe are valid predictors of outcome after subacromial decompression, as is the presence of multiple impingement tests. This study may aid in improving patient outcome and especially patient selection for subacromial decompression.

Level of evidence

Prognostic, Level I.

Keywords

Subacromial impingement syndrome Clinical examination Subacromial decompression 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Altchek DW, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL et al (1990) Arthroscopic acromioplasty. Technique and results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:1198–1207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arcand MA, O’Rourke P, Zeman CA et al (2000) Revision surgery after failed subacromial decompression. Int Orthop 24:61–64PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bigliani LU, Levine WN (1997) Subacromial impingement syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:1854–1868PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehm D, Wollmerstedt N, Doesch M et al (2004) Development of a questionnaire based on the Constant-Murley-Score for self-evaluation of shoulder function by patients. Unfallchirurg 107:397–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calis M, Akgun K, Birtane M et al (2000) Diagnostic values of clinical diagnostic tests in subacromial impingement syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis 59:44–47PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Connor PM, Yamaguchi K, Pollock RG et al (2000) Comparison of arthroscopic and open revision decompression for failed anterior acromioplasty. Orthopedics 23:549–554PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Constant CR, Murley AH (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 214:160–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dorrestijn O, Stevens M, Winters JC et al (2009) Conservative or surgical treatment for subacromial impingement syndrome? A systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:652–660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerber C, Sebesta A (2000) Impingement of the deep surface of the subscapularis tendon and the reflection pulley on the anterosuperior glenoid rim: a preliminary report. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 9:483–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guyette TM, Bae H, Warren RF et al (2002) Results of arthroscopic subacromial decompression in patients with subacromial impingement and glenohumeral degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11:299–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gwilym SE, Oag HC, Tracey I et al (2011) Evidence that central sensitisation is present in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome and influences the outcome after surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:498–502Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hawkins RJ, Chris T, Bokor D et al (1989) Failed anterior acromioplasty. A review of 51 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 243:106–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hawkins RJ, Hobeika PE (1983) Impingement syndrome in the athletic shoulder. Clin Sports Med 2:391–405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hawkins RJ, Kennedy JC (1980) Impingement syndrome in athletes. Am J Sports Med 8:151–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henn RF 3rd, Kang L, Tashjian RZ et al (2007) Patients’ preoperative expectations predict the outcome of rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1913–1919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holtby R, Razmjou H (2010) Impact of work-related compensation claims on surgical outcome of patients with rotator cuff related pathologies: a matched case-control study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19:452–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jia X, Ji JH, Pannirselvam V et al (2011) Does a positive neer impingement sign reflect rotator cuff contact with the acromion? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:813–818Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jobe FW, Moynes DR (1982) Delineation of diagnostic criteria and a rehabilitation program for rotator cuff injuries. Am J Sports Med 10:336–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johansson K, Ivarson S (2009) Intra- and interexaminer reliability of four manual shoulder maneuvers used to identify subacromial pain. Man Ther 14:231–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kirkley A, Alvarez C, Griffin S (2003) The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for disorders of the rotator cuff: the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Clin J Sport Med 13:84–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kirkley A, Litchfield RB, Jackowski DM et al (2002) The use of the impingement test as a predictor of outcome following subacromial decompression for rotator cuff tendinosis. Arthroscopy 18:8–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lim JT, Acornley A, Dodenhoff RM (2005) Recovery after arthroscopic subacromial decompression: prognostic value of the subacromial injection test. Arthroscopy 21:680–683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    MacDonald PB, Clark P, Sutherland K (2000) An analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the Hawkins and Neer subacromial impingement signs. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 9:299–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mair SD, Viola RW, Gill TJ et al (2004) Can the impingement test predict outcome after arthroscopic subacromial decompression? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13:150–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    May S, Chance-Larsen K, Littlewood C et al (2010) Reliability of physical examination tests used in the assessment of patients with shoulder problems: a systematic review. Physiotherapy 96:179–190Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Michener LA, Walsworth MK, Doukas WC et al (2009) Reliability and diagnostic accuracy of 5 physical examination tests and combination of tests for subacromial impingement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90:1898–1903PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Naredo E, Aguado P, De Miguel E et al (2002) Painful shoulder: comparison of physical examination and ultrasonographic findings. Ann Rheum Dis 61:132–136PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Neer CS 2nd (1972) Anterior acromioplasty for the chronic impingement syndrome in the shoulder: a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 54:41–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ogilvie-Harris DJ, Wiley AM, Sattarian J (1990) Failed acromioplasty for impingement syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Br 72:1070–1072PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oh JH, Kim SH, Kim KH et al (2010) Modified impingement test can predict the level of pain reduction after rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med 38:1383–1388Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Olsewski JM, Depew AD (1994) Arthroscopic subacromial decompression and rotator cuff debridement for stage II and stage III impingement. Arthroscopy 10:61–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Park HB, Yokota A, Gill HS et al (2005) Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for the different degrees of subacromial impingement syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1446–1455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Patel VR, Singh D, Calvert PT et al (1999) Arthroscopic subacromial decompression: results and factors affecting outcome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8:231–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Seeger LL, Gold RH, Bassett LW et al (1988) Shoulder impingement syndrome: MR findings in 53 shoulders. AJR Am J Roentgenol 150:343–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tucker S, Taylor NF, Green RA (2011) Anatomical validity of the Hawkins–Kennedy test—a pilot study. Man Ther 16:399–402Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Valadie AL 3rd, Jobe CM, Pink MM et al (2000) Anatomy of provocative tests for impingement syndrome of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 9:36–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vitale MA, Arons RR, Hurwitz S et al (2010) The rising incidence of acromioplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:1842–1850Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Kappe
    • 1
  • Kevin Knappe
    • 1
  • Mohammed Elsharkawi
    • 1
  • Heiko Reichel
    • 1
  • Balkan Cakir
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations