Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 21, 2025
Treatment Protocol for Rotator Cuff Calcific Tendinitis Using a Single-Crystal Piezoelectric Focused Shock Wave Source
Published on: December 23, 2022
Results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair for calcific tendonitis: a comparative analysis
Justin J Ernat1, Dylan R Rakowski2, Aaron J Casp1
1Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, CO, USA; The Steadman Clinic, Vail, CO, USA.
Background:
Outcomes following arthroscopic excision of calcific tendonitis and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (CT-ARCR) are relatively limited without comparison analysis to standard arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after CT-ARCR compared against a matched cohort who received standard ARCR.
Methods:
An institutional review board-approved retrospective review was performed for patients aged 18-80 years receiving CT-ARCR by a single surgeon from 2006-2018. These were matched 1:3 with patients receiving ARCR. Patients with concurrent labral repair, subscapularis repair, or glenohumeral joint arthritis procedures; refusal to participate; deceased; inadequate contact information; or those with inadequate records were excluded. PROs included Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS) score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES); Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE); Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH); patient satisfaction; activity level/symptoms; and sport participation scores.
Results:
21 CT-ARCR patients (mean age 50 years, range 36-62) and 54 ARCR patients (mean age 52 years, range 19-77) were included. Minimum 2-year follow-up was obtained in 18 of 21 (86%) CT-ARCR (mean 5.9 years) and 45 of 54 (83%) ARCR patients (mean 5.6 years). CT-ARCR patients improved pre- to postoperation in mean SF-12 PCS (41.1 to 50.0), ASES (54.2 to 94.0), and QuickDASH (54.2 to 94.0). SANE score improvements (57.6 to 82.8) were not significant. ARCR controls improved pre- to postoperation in mean SF-12 PCS (41.4 to 49.0), ASES (59.4 to 88.0), QuickDASH (35.1 to 13.8), and SANE scores (52.6 to 80.8). Pre- to postoperative pain during recreation and sport participation similarly improved in both groups. The only postoperative difference observed between CT-ARCR and ARCR was better patient satisfaction with CT-ARCR (9.7 vs. 8.3).
Conclusion:
CT-ARCR results in excellent PROs, activity symptoms, and sports participation at final follow-up. CT-ARCR results were comparable to patients who received conventional ARCR for similar-sized rotator cuff tears that did not have calcific tendonitis.
