Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2026
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Published on: July 5, 2011
Rotator Cuff Repair With or Without Acromioplasty: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials With Outcomes
James A Maguire1, Jaydeep Dhillon2, Anthony J Scillia1
1St. Joseph's University Medical Center, Paterson, New Jersey, USA.
Background:
It is unclear whether the use of concomitant acromioplasty during rotator cuff repair (RCR) improves clinical outcomes and whether the outcomes are affected by acromial type.
Purpose:
To perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes of RCR with and without acromioplasty, with a subanalysis of outcomes based on acromial type.
Study Design:
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.
Methods:
A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials that directly compared outcomes between RCR with versus without acromioplasty. A subanalysis was performed on the studies that provided outcomes based on acromial type. The search phrase used was rotator cuff repair (acromioplasty OR subacromial decompression) randomized. Patients were evaluated based on retear rate, reoperation rate, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
Results:
Application of inclusion criteria yielded 5 studies (2 studies were level 1, and 3 studies were level 2) including a total of 409 patients, with 211 patients undergoing RCR alone (group A) and 198 patients undergoing RCR with acromioplasty (group B). The mean patient age was 58.5 and 58.3 years in groups A and B, respectively. The mean follow-up time was 52.9 months, and the overall percentage of male patients was 54.1%. The rotator cuff tear size was 20.7 mm and 19.8 mm for groups A and B, respectively. No significant differences were found between groups for any of the PROs at final follow-up. Overall retear rates did not significantly differ between groups based on acromial type. Between 2 studies that measured reoperation rate, a significantly higher reoperation rate was found for the nonacromioplasty group (15%) versus the acromioplasty group (4.1%) (P = .031). One of these studies found that 5 of 9 patients (56%) with a type III acromion in the nonacromioplasty group underwent reoperation compared with 0 of 4 patients with a type III acromion in the acromioplasty group.
Conclusion:
There is some evidence that acromioplasty during RCR reduces the risk for later reoperation. This may be particularly true for patients with type III acromions, although further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to corroborate these data.
