Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Arthroscopic treatment and subacromial decompression of calcific tendinitis without removal of the calcific deposit results in rapid resolution of symptoms and excellent clinical outcomes in commercial airline pilots and cabin crew

  • Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to report the results of subacromial arthroscopic decompression (SAD) without removal of the calcific deposits in patients with calcifying tendinitis.

Methods

All patients between 2016 and 2019 were included if they were aged between 18 and 60 years and had an isolated calcific deposit. The Constant–Murley score (CMS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Quick DASH) score, the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), the simple shoulder test (SST), and the single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) were used for assessment. Time to return to work was recorded.

Results

24 patients (13 pilots, 11 cabin crew) with a mean age of 47.1 ± 7.8 years were included. Quick Dash improved from 68.8 preoperative, to 8.4 at 3 months, and 0.1 at 24 months. CMS improved from 37.4 preoperative, to 83 at 3 months, and 94 at 24 months. SPADI improved from 73.8 preoperative, to 5.4 at 3 months, and 1 at 24 months. SST improved from 22.5 preoperative, to 94.2 at 3 months, and 100 at 24 months. SANE improved from 33.5 preoperative, to 78.7 at 3 months, and 95.6 at 24 months. MCID, SCB, and PASS reached values above 83% at 3 months and 100% at 6 months, with the exception of SANE which reached 29% at 3 months and plateaued to 96% at 6 months. The mean time to return to work was 7.1 ± 2.1 weeks. Pilots returned at a mean of 6.9 ± 1.8 weeks; cabin crew returned to work at a mean of 7.8 ± 2.5 weeks.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest excellent short- and mid-term clinical outcomes can be achieved in patients with calcific tendinitis undergoing arthroscopic debridement and subacromial decompression without removal of calcific deposits. In this patient population, early surgical intervention was a potentially viable alternative to nonoperative treatment, and allowed early return to work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Merolla G, Singh S, Paladini P, Porcellini G (2016) Calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff: state of the art in diagnosis and treatment. J Orthopaed Traumatol 17:7–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-015-0367-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bosworth BM (1941) Calcium deposits in the shoulder and subacromial bursitis: a survey of 12122 shoulders. JAMA 116:2477–2482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sansone V, Maiorano E, Galluzzo A, Pascale V (2018) Calcific tendinitis of the shoulder: clinical perspectives into the mechanisms, pathogenesis and treatment. Orthop Res Rev 10:63–72. https://doi.org/10.2147/ORR.S138225

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Chiou HJ, Hung SC, Lin SH, Wei YS, Li MJ (2010) Correlation among mineral components, progressive calcification process and clinical symptoms of calcific tendonitis. Rheumatology 49:548–565. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kep359

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Suzuki K, Potts A, Anakwenze O, Singh A (2014) Calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff: management options. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 22(11):707–717. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-22-11-707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Uhthoff HK, Loehr JW (1997) Calcific tendinopathy of the rotator cuff: pathogenesis, diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 5(4):183–191. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-199707000-00001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Merolla G, Bhat MG, Paladini P, Porcellini G (2015) Complications of calcific tendinitis of the shoulder: a concise review. J Orthop Traumatol 16(3):175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-015-0339-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Simpson M, Pizzari T, Cook T, Wildman S, Lewis J (2020) Effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Verstraelen FU, Fievez E, Janssen L, Morrenhof W (2017) Surgery for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: a systematic review. World J Orthop 8:424–430. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v8.i5.424

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Castillo-Gonzalez FD, Ramos-Alvarez JJ, Rodrıguez-Fabián G, Gonzalez-Perez J, Calderon-Montero J (2014) Treatment of the calcific tendinopathy of the rotator cuff by ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle lavage. Two years prospective study. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J 4(2):220–225

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lafrance S, Doiron-Cadrin P, Saulnier M, Lamontagne M, Bureau NJ, Dyer JO, Roy JS et al (2019) Is ultrasound-guided lavage an effective intervention for rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 5(1):e000506. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000506

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Frassanito P, Cavalieri C, Maestri R, Felicetti G (2018) Effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and kinesio taping in calcific tendinopathy of the shoulder: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 54(3):333–340. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04749-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ark JW, Flock TJ, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU (1992) Arthroscopic treatment of calcific tendinitis of the shoulder. Arthroscopy 8(2):183–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-8063(92)90034-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jerosch J, Strauss JM, Schmiel S (1998) Arthroscopic treatment of calcific tendinitis of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7(1):30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1058-2746(98)90180-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Porcellini G, Paladini P, Campi F, Paganelli M (2004) Arthroscopic treatment of calcifying tendinits of the shoulder: clinical and ultrasonographic follow-up at two to five years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13(5):503–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2004.04.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Seil R, Litzenburger H, Kohn D, Rupp S (2006) Arthroscopic treatment of chronically painful calcifying tendinitis of the supraspinatus tendon. Arthroscopy 22(5):521–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2006.01.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tillander BM, Norlin RO (1998) Change of calcifications after arthroscopic subacromial decompression. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7(3):213–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1058-2746(98)90047-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Medical advice on return to work with regards to musculoskeletal disordersw. https://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm. Accessed 16 Nov 2021

  19. Easy access rules and regulations for medical requirements. European Union Aviation Safety Agency. https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Easy_Access_Rules_for_Medical_Requirements.pdf. Accessed 23 Jun 2021

  20. Guide for aviation medical examiners. Synopsis of Medical Standards. Federal Aviation Administration. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/media/guide.pdf. Accessed 23 Jun 2021

  21. Vrotsou K, Avila M, Machon M, Mateo-Abad M, Pardo Y, Garin O et al (2018) Constant-Murley score: systematic review and standardised evaluation in different shoulder pathologies. Qual Life Res 27(9):2217–2226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1875-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C (2003) The disabilities of the arm, should and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-4-11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hill CL, Lester S, Taylor AW, Shanahan ME, Gill TK (2011) Factor structure and validity of the shoulder and disability index in a population-based study of people with shoulder symptoms. BMC Musculoskeletal Disord 12:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Godfrey J, Hamman R, Lowenstein S, Briggs K, Kocher M (2007) Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the simple shoulder test: psychometric properties by age and injury type. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16(3):260–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.07.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Neto JOB, Gesser RL, Steglich V, Ferreira APB, Gandhi M, Vissoci JRN et al (2013) Validation of the simple shoulder test in a Portugese-Brazilian population. Is latent variable structure and validation of the simple shoulder test stable across cultures? PLoS ONE 8(5):e62890. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062890

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. O’Connor CM, Ring D (2019) Correlation of single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) with other patient reported outcomes. Arch Bone Jt Surg 7(4):303–306. https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2018.33884.1888

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Thigpen CA, Shanley E, Momaya AM, Kissberth MJ, Tolan SJ, Tokish JM et al (2018) Validity and responsiveness of the single alpha-numeric evaluation for shoulder patients. Am J Sports Med 46(14):3480–3485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546518807924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wickham JR, Lay BC, Scribani MB, Wittstein JR (2020) Single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) correlates with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 29(2):363–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA, Uhorchak JM, Taylor DC (1999) Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. Outcome measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med 27(2):214–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465990270021701

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cvetanovich GL, Gowd AK, Liu JN, Nwachuku BU, Cabarcas BC, Cole BJ et al (2019) Establishing clinically significant outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 28:939–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Franchignoni F, Vercelli S, Giordano A, Sartorio F, Bravini E, Ferriero G (2014) Minimal clinically important differences of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (QuickDASH). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 44(1):30–39. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2014.4893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Louwerens JKG, van den Bekerom MPJ, van Royen BJ, Eygendaal D, van Noort A, Sierevelt IN (2020) Quantifying the minimal and substantial clinical benefit of the Constant-Murley score and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score in patients with calcific tendinitis of the shoulder. JSES Int 4(3):606–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2020.05.001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Christie A, Dagfinrud H, Garrat AM, Osnes HR, Hagen KB (2011) Identification of shoulder specific patient acceptable symptom state in patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing shoulder surgery. J Hand Therapy 24(1):53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2010.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Simovitch R, Flurin PH, Wright T, Zuckermann JD, Roche CP (2018) Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the substantial clinical benefit. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27(5):903–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.12.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Green A, Porucznik CA, Powell AP (2010) Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92(2):296–303. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chamberlain AM, Hung M, Chen W (2017) Determining the patient acceptable state for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test and visual analog score (VAS) after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 26(1):144–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/2471549217720042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ (2009) Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Rheum 61(5):623–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.24396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Okohora KR, Lu Y, Nwachuku BU, Beletsky A, Patel BH, Verma NN et al (2020) How should we define clinically significant improvement on patient-reported outcomes measurement information system tests for patients undergoing meniscal surgery? Arthroscopy 36(1):241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2019.07.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nicholson GP (2003) Arthroscopic acromioplasty: a comparison between worker’s compensation and non-workers’ compensation populations. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85(4):682–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. McClelland D, Paxinos A, Dodenhoff RM (2005) Rate of return to work and driving following arthroscopic subacromial decompression. ANZ J Surg 75(9):747–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03529.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Charalambous CP, Sahu A, Alvi F, Batra S, Gullett TK, Ravenscroft M (2010) Rate of return to work and driving following arthroscopic subacromial decompression and acromio-clavicular joint excision. Shoulder Elbow 2:83–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5740.2010.00048.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jayasekara M, Lam PH, Murrell GAC (2020) Return to work following shoulder surgery. An analysis of 1,773 cases. JBJS Open Access 5(3):e19.00081. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.19.00081

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Marder RA, Heiden EA, Kim S (2011) Calcific tendonitis of the shoulder: is subacromial decompression in combination with removal of the deposit beneficial? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20(6):955–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.10.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pieterse R (2015) Workplace injuries in flight attendants. Assessing fitness to resume flying duties. In: Proceedings of the 86th AsMA annual scientific meeting of the aerospace medical association, Orlanda, Florida

  45. Cho NS, Lee BG, Rhee YG (2010) Radiologic course of the calcific deposits in calcific tendinitis of the shoulder. Does the initial radiologic aspect affect the final results? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(2):267–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.07.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Contreras F, Brown HC, Marx RG (2013) Predictors of success for corticosteroid injection for management of rotator cuff disease. HSS J 9(1):2–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-012-9316-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Ogon P, Suedkamp NP, Jaeger M, Izadpanah K, Koestler W, Maier D (2009) Prognostic factors in nonoperative therapy for chronic symptomatic calcific tendinitis of the shoulder. Arthritis Rheum 60(10):2978–2984. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.24845

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bechay J, Lawrence C, Namdari S (2020) Calcific tendinopathy of the rotator cuff: a review of operative versus nonoperative management. Phy Sportsmed 48(3):241–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.2019.1710617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sabeti M, Schmidt M, Ziai P, Graf A, Nemecek E, Schueller-Weidekamm C (2014) The intraoperative use of ultrasound facilitates significantly the arthroscopic debridement of calcific rotator cuff tendinitis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(5):651–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-1927-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Clement N, Watts A, Phillips C, Mcbirnie JM (2015) Short-term outcome after arthroscopic bursectomy debridement of rotator cuff calcific tendonopathy with and without subacromial decompression: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Arthroscopy 31(9):1680–1687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2015.05.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wittenberg RH, Rubenthaler F, Wölk T, Ludwig J, Willburger RE, Steffen R (2001) Surgical or conservative treatment for chronic rotator cuff calcifying tendinitis—a matched-pair analysis of 100 patients. Arch Orthop Traum Surg 121(1–2):56–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004020000195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study received no funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Burjeel Hospital for Advanced Surgery, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Erik Hohmann

  2. School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Cnr Bophelo and Dr Savage Road, Gezina, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa

    Erik Hohmann

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Herston, Australia

    Kevin Tetsworth

  4. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Kevin Tetsworth

  5. Limb Reconstruction Center, Macquarie University Hospital, Macquarie Park, Australia

    Kevin Tetsworth

  6. Orthopaedic Research Centre of Australia, Brisbane, Australia

    Kevin Tetsworth

Authors
  1. Erik Hohmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin Tetsworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EH: conceptualisation, protocol, design interpretation, writing, final approval of manuscript. KT: conceptualisation, protocol, writing, final approval of manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erik Hohmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interested.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.” Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.”

Consent to participate

All authors agreed to participate.

Consent for publication

All authors are in agreement with the manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hohmann, E., Tetsworth, K. Arthroscopic treatment and subacromial decompression of calcific tendinitis without removal of the calcific deposit results in rapid resolution of symptoms and excellent clinical outcomes in commercial airline pilots and cabin crew. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143, 919–926 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04339-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04339-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation