Randomized Trial of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff With or Without Acromioplasty: No Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes at Long-Term Follow-Up

Purpose To evaluate long-term patient-reported outcomes and revision surgery after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with or without acromioplasty. Methods Between 2007 and 2011, prospectively enrolled patients undergoing arthroscopic repair for full-thickness rotator cuff tears, with any acromial morphology, were randomized into either acromioplasty or nonacromioplasty groups. Patients with revision surgery, subscapularis involvement, advanced neurologic conditions, or death were excluded. Baseline and long-term follow-up questionnaires, including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, and Constant scores were obtained. Rates of symptomatic retear, revision rotator cuff surgery, or secondary reoperation were recorded. Averages with standard deviation were calculated, and t-tests were used to compare outcomes of interest between cohorts. Results In total, 69 of 90 patients (76.7%) were available at 92.4 months (± 10.5). There were 23 of 32 patients in the acromioplasty cohort and 24 of 37 patients in the nonacromioplasty cohort. Mean age for the nonacromioplasty cohort was 56.9 (± 7.6) years, whereas acromioplasty was 59.6 (± 6.8) years. Comparison of baseline demographics and intraoperative information revealed no significant differences, including age, sex, Workers’ Compensation, acute mechanism of injury, tear size, degree of retraction, and surgical technique (e.g., single- vs. double-row). At final follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences according to ASES (P = .33), VAS pain (P = 0.79), Constant (P = .17), SST (P = .05), UCLA (P = .19), and Short Form-12 (SF-12) (P = .79) in patients with and without acromioplasty. Two patients with acromioplasty (5.6%) and 3 patients without acromioplasty (9.1%) sustained atraumatic recurrent rotator cuff tear with secondary repair (P = .99), and there was no significant difference in retear rates or patient-reported outcome measures by acromial morphology. Conclusions This randomized trial, with mean 7.5-year follow-up, found no difference in validated patient-reported outcomes, retear rate, or revision surgery rate between patients undergoing rotator cuff repair with or without acromioplasty. Level of Evidence II, prospective randomized controlled trial.