01-12-2018 | Shoulder
The absorbable subacromial spacer for irreparable posterosuperior cuff tears has inconsistent results
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 12/2018
Login to get accessAbstract
Purpose
To evaluate the 2-year results of an absorbable subacromial spacer in patients with irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears.
Methods
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.
Results
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).
Conclusions
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
IV.