The absorbable subacromial spacer for irreparable posterosuperior cuff tears has inconsistent results
- 167 Downloads
To evaluate the 2-year results of an absorbable subacromial spacer in patients with irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears.
Prospective longitudinal study of a consecutive case series of 16 subjects with irreparable tears of the posterosuperior rotator cuff in which the InSpace® subacromial spacer was arthroscopically implanted. A full clinical evaluation that included the Constant test, Simple Shoulder Test (SST) and the QuickDash questionnaire was performed preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months follow-up. The primary outcome for assessing the success of the procedure was a variable composed of a clinically relevant variation of the Constant (established in an improvement greater than 10 points) and the absence of surgical reintervention.
Fifteen subjects (11 women/4 men, median age = 69.4 years [interquartile range 7.50], range 60–80 years) completed the 2-year of follow-up. According to the main evaluation criteria, only 6 patients (40%) had a successful outcome. Five subjects required reconversion to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (at a median of 9.8 months postoperatively) due to absence of clinical improvement or worsening of symptoms. Of the ten remaining subjects, only 6 had improvements greater than 10 points in the Constant score. Despite of this, these 10 subjects had, on average, some improvement in the Constant test (preoperative Constant: median 35.0 [27.0–52.5] vs Constant at 24 months: 53.5 [55.0–84.0], significant differences p = 0.02), in the SST (3.0 [2.0–4.0] vs 6.0 [3.25–7.75], p = 0.039) and in the QuickDASH test (37.0 [33.25–40.0] vs 27.5 [20.5–32.75], p = 0.012).
The outcomes of the implantation of the subacromial biodegradable spacer at 2-year follow-up are not satisfactory. In this small case series only 40% of patients seem to clearly benefit from surgery. One in three required revision to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The described technique does not seem a reasonable alternative for the management of the majority of patients with irreparable ruptures of the rotator cuff. The indications of this device should be more clearly defined.
Level of evidence
KeywordsSubacromial spacer Massive rotator cuff tear Irreparable cuff tear Shoulder
No funding has been obtained to perform this research.
Conflicts of interest
MRI had travel and accomodation expenses covered by Orthospace LTD. Cesarea. Israel. The rest of the authors do not have conflicts of interest.
IRB approval was obtained from the Clinical investigation and Ethics Committee of the Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.
- 3.Boileau P, Baque F, Valerio L, Ahrens P, Chuinard C, Trojani C (2007) Isolated arthroscopic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis improves symptoms in patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89(4):747–757Google Scholar
- 19.Ricci M, Vecchini E, Bonfante E, Micheloni GM, Berti M, Schenal G, Zanetti G, Sambugaro E, Maluta T, Magnan B (2017) A clinical and radiological study of biodegradable subacromial spacer in the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Acta Bio-Medica Atenei Parmensis 88(4-s):75–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Schiefer M, Mendonca R, Magnanini MM, Fontenelle C, Pires Carvalho AC, Almeida M, Chu AC, Silva SM, Visconti F, Ferreira GA, Franco JS (2015) Intraobserver and interobserver agreement of Goutallier classification applied to magnetic resonance images. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(8):1314–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Sevivas N, Ferreira N, Andrade R, Moreira P, Portugal R, Alves D, Vieira da Silva M, Sousa N, Salgado AJ, Espregueira-Mendes J (2017) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 26(9):e265–e277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Werner CM, Steinmann PA, Gilbart M, Gerber C (2005) Treatment of painful pseudoparesis due to irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction with the Delta III reverse-ball-and-socket total shoulder prosthesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 87(7):1476–1486Google Scholar