Background Surgery for rotator cuff disease is usually used after non-operative interventions have failed, although our Cochrane Review, first published in 2007, found that there was uncertain clinical benefit following subacromial decompression surgery. Objectives To synthesise the available evidence of the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery compared with placebo, no intervention or non-surgical interventions in people with rotator cuff disease (excluding full thickness rotator cuff tears). Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry from 2006 until 22 October 2018, unrestricted by language. Selection criteria We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with rotator cuff disease (excluding full-thickness tears), that compared subacromial decompression surgery with placebo, no treatment, or any other non-surgical interventions. As it is least prone to bias, subacromial decompression compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Other comparisons were subacromial decompression versus exercises or non-operative treatment. Major outcomes were mean pain scores, shoulder function, quality of life, participant global assessment of success, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint for this review was one year. For serious adverse events, we also included data from prospective cohort studies designed to record harms that evaluated subacromial decompression surgery or shoulder arthroscopy.

No abstract

Clinical questionDo adults with atraumatic shoulder pain for more than 3 months diagnosed as subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), also labelled as rotator cuff disease, benefit from subacromial decompression surgery? This guideline builds on to two recent high quality trials of shoulder surgery.Current practiceSAPS is the common diagnosis for shoulder pain with several first line treatment options, including analgesia, exercises, and injections. Surgeons frequently perform arthroscopic subacromial decompression for prolonged symptoms, with guidelines providing conflicting recommendations.RecommendationThe guideline panel makes a strong recommendation against surgery.How this guideline was createdA guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE system. The recommendation is based on two linked systematic reviews on (a) the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery and (b) the minimally important differences for patient reported outcome measures. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of surgery in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (www.magicapp.org) to support shared decisions and adaptation.The evidenceSurgery did not provide important improvements in pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo surgery or other options. Frozen shoulder may be more common with surgery.Understanding the recommendationThe panel concluded that almost all informed patients would choose to avoid surgery because there is no benefit but there are harms and it is burdensome. Subacromial decompression surgery should not be offered to patients with SAPS. However, there is substantial uncertainty in what alternative treatment is best.

Objective To determine the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery in adult patients with subacromial pain syndrome lasting for more than 3 months. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Main outcome measures Pain, physical function and health-related quality of life.

Background Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and autologous blood are commonly used therapies for lateral epicondylitis, but the evidence from randomized, placebo-controlled trials is conflicting. Thus, it is still unclear if patients benefit from these treatments. Questions/purposes In the setting of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we compared PRP, autologous blood, and saline injections in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis with respect to: (1) VAS pain scores, and (2) functional outcomes (DASH score and grip strength) 1 year after treatment. Methods We performed a parallel-group, randomized, controlled participant- and assessor-blinded study including adults with clinically diagnosed lateral epicondylitis. We defined lateral epicondylitis as pain in the lateral humeral epicondyle area exacerbated during resisted wrist extension and epicondyle compression. The participants were recruited from a secondary referral center, after not responding to initial nonoperative treatment. Patients with other concomitant upper-limb symptoms and surgical treatment of the elbow were excluded. Randomization sequence was generated with computer software and concealed from the investigators. We randomized 119 participants to receive an injection of PRP, autologous blood, or saline (1:1:1) in the proximal insertion of the extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle; 40 participants received PRP, 40 received autologous blood, and 39 received a saline injection. To prepare the PRP, we collected venous blood with a syringe kit followed by centrifugation, whereas autologous blood group received unprepared blood injection. Two unblinded investigators gave injections while the participant was unable to see the injection. There was no formal postinjection rehabilitation protocol and the use of NSAIDs was similar between different treatment arms. Follow-up visits were at 4, 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after the injection. The primary outcome measure was improvement in pain, measured with VAS scale (without specification as to whether the pain was activity related or at rest; range 0-10; a higher score indicates worse pain; the minimum clinically important difference [MCID] on the 10-cm scale was 1.5 cm), from baseline to 52 weeks. The secondary outcomes were the DASH score (range 0-100; a higher indicates a poorer outcome, and the MCID was 10.2 points) and grip strength. All patients were included in the analyses, and analyses were performed using the intention-to-treat principle. There was no crossover between treatment groups. At 52 weeks, nearly all (95% [38 of 40]) participants in autologous blood group were available for analysis whereas 78% (31 of 40) and 82% (32 of 39) were available in PRP and saline groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov and funded by the local hospital district. With 40 patients in each group, we had 80% power to detect a clinically important improvement in pain (1.5 cm on the 10-cm VAS pain scale). Results There were no clinically important differences in the mean VAS pain or DASH scores among the groups at any timepoint. At 52 weeks, the mean difference in the VAS score for pain was -0.2 (95% CI -1.5 to 1.1; p = 0.75) for PRP versus saline and 0.5 (95% CI -0.7 to 1.7; p = 0.40) for autologous blood versus saline. The corresponding mean differences in the DASH score were 0.0 (95% CI -9.2 to 9.2; p > 0.99) and 7.7 (95% CI -1.3 to 16.7; p = 0.09) and those for grip strength were 1.4 kg (95% CI -3.3 to 6.1; p = 0.56) and -0.2 kg (95% CI -5.0 to 4.5; p = 0.92). No complications occurred because of the injections. Conclusions PRP or autologous blood injections did not improve pain or function at 1 year of follow-up in people with lateral epicondylitis compared with those who were given a saline injection. However, because the 95% CIs did not exclude the MCID in VAS scores for autologous blood versus saline at 52 weeks, it is possible that a larger study could identify a between-group difference that we missed, but the effect size of that difference (based on our findings), even if present, is likely still to be small. Until or unless future randomized trials convincingly show a benefit either to PRP or autologous blood injections, we recommend against their use in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Level of Evidence Level II, therapeutic study.

Background Tennis elbow is a common painful enthesopathy of the lateral elbow that limits upper limb function and frequently results in lost time at work. Surgeons often recommend surgery if symptoms persist despite nonsurgical management, but operations for tennis elbow are inconsistent in their efficacy, and what we know about those operations often derives from observational studies that assume the condition does not continue to improve over time. This assumption is largely untested, and it may not be true; meta-analyzing results from the control arms of tennis elbow studies can help us to evaluate this premise, but to our knowledge, this has not been done. Questions/purposes The aims of this systematic review were to describe the course of (1) global improvement, (2) pain, and (3) disability in participants who received no active treatment (placebo or no treatment) in published randomized Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

The “grasping technique” described by Isidor Kessler and Fuad Nissim in 1969 is a popular method of flexor tendon repair. Different authors have modified this technique to the point where the so-called “modified Kessler technique” bears little resemblance to the original description. This article sheds light on the life and contributions of Isidor Kessler, and examines the evolution of the Kessler technique and the origin of grasping and locking tendon repairs. We also discuss the problems associated with eponymous descriptions of tendon repair techniques, and propose an alternative descriptive system.

No abstract