Showing posts with label acromion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label acromion. Show all posts

Friday, February 20, 2026

Is "correction" of acromial morphology clinically effective in treating posterior shoulder instability?

The Summary

Posterior shoulder instability is being increasingly recognized as an important clinical problem - both in terms of the resulting compromise in the patient's shoulder comfort and function as well as a prelude to shoulder arthritis. In the Walch glenoid classification system, B0 is a pre-arthritic glenoid with posterior humeral instability that precedes the biconcave morphology and bone loss that defines the B2 glenoid. It is not known whether surgical intervention (and what type of surgical intervention) can mitigate the progression to arthritis. 

B0 Glenoid


Acromial morphology — specifically a high, flat posterior acromion with PAH >23mm — is  consistently associated with posterior shoulder instability across multiple independent cohorts and imaging modalities. A high, flat acromion predicts posterior shoulder instability better than almost any other imaging finding. 


Extraordinary association is not causation, and strong association does not automatically justify operative intervention. The acromion shares its embryonic developmental origins with every other tissue involved in posterior shoulder stability. The most parsimonious explanation for its remarkable predictive value is that a high, flat acromion is the most visible and measurable expression of a multi-tissue developmental syndrome — a marker, not the mechanism. 

Evidence supporting acromial correction in posterior shoulder instability is lacking: it includes no prospective clinical trials. The only clinical data rests on a single unreplicated 10-patient case series. The biomechanical studies, while mechanistically interesting, were performed under conditions (e.g. normal glenoid anatomy) that do not reflect typical clinical patients.


The clinical problem

Posterior shoulder instability is defined as dynamic, recurrent, and symptomatic partial or total loss of posterior glenohumeral joint contact. Multiple anatomic factors — labral tears, glenoid morphology, capsular laxity, bone loss, and acromial morphology — may contribute in varying combinations.

Relation of acromial morphology to posterior instability

The morphology of the acromion has long been implicated in shoulder pathology, particularly in relation to subacromial impingement and rotator cuff disease. More recently, interest has shifted toward the posterior acromion, with studies examining its potential role in posterior instability

Reproducibility and Relevance of Acromial Morphology Measurements in Shoulder Pathologies: A Critical Review of the Literature reviewed nine studies assessing sagittal acromial tilt, posterior coverage, and acromial height. In posterior instability the acromion is generally described as more horizontally oriented, less covering posteriorly, and positioned higher. Although these trends suggest a possible biomechanical role for the acromion, reported values vary widely between studies, and significant overlap exists between pathological and control groups. Such variability is compounded by differences in imaging modality and definitions of anatomical landmarks.These methodological inconsistencies undermine reproducibility and limit the clinical applicability of posterior acromial parameters. The reduction of a complex three-dimensional structure like the acromion into two-dimensional projections inevitably loses information about the spatial relationship between the acromion and the posterior humeral head. Acromial parameters identify groups at elevated risk, but do not provide the individual-level diagnostic precision needed to justify surgical targeting of the acromion in a specific patient.


Posterior Acromial Morphology Is Significantly Associated With Posterior Shoulder Instability carried out a study of 41 patients with unidirectional posterior instability and a control group of 53 patients with no instability in which the authors compared measurements of acromial morphology. Significantly, concurrent measures of glenoid morphology were not reported. (The article also presented an analysis of patients with anterior instability, but those are not relevant to our interest in comparing patients with posterior instability to controls).

Radiographic acromial characteristics included posterior acromial tilt,  posterior acromial coverage (PAC), and posterior acromial height (PAH).



Posterior acromial tilt is determined by measuring the angle formed by the reference line (connecting the inferior angle of the scapula with the center of the intersection of the small arms of the “Y”) and a line connecting the most posterior point of the inferior aspect of the acromion to the most anterior point of the inferior aspect (white area).



The posterior acromial coverage (PAC) refers to an angle formed by the reference line (connecting the inferior angle of the scapula with the center of the intersection of the small arms of the “Y”) and a line drawn from the intersection of the small arms of the “Y” to the most posterior point of the inferior aspect of the acromion (red area).

To measure the posterior acromial height (PAH), a perpendicular line is drawn from the reference line (connecting the inferior angle of the scapula with the center of the intersection of the small arms of the “Y”) to the most posterior point of the inferior aspect of the acromion. The PAH (green bracket) is then measured as the distance from the center of the intersection of the small arms of the “Y” to the perpendicular line.


Patients with posterior instability had greater mean posterior acromial height (30.9 versus 20.4 mm) and posterior acromial tilt (63.6° versus 55.9°) compared with the control group. Posterior acromial coverage (48.8° versus 61.6°) was lower in the posterior instability group than in the control group. The authors concluded that in shoulders with posterior instability, the acromion is situated higher and is oriented more horizontally in the sagittal plane than in normal shoulders; and suggested that this acromial position may provide less osseous restraint against posterior humeral head translation.

Correlation of Acromial Morphology With Risk and Direction of Shoulder Instability: An MRI Study posterior instability patients had significantly less posterior acromial coverage than in the control group (68.3° vs. 81.7°) and greater posterior acromial height  (11.0mm vs. 0.7 mm). Crucially, this study excluded patients with multidirectional instability, glenoid bone loss >13.5%, or retroversion >10° — thereby studying the "cleanest" possible posterior instability cases, without the most severe osseous co-pathology. This exclusion criterion is worth noting: by removing patients with the most significant glenoid abnormalities, the study actually enhanced the apparent signal from acromial parameters in isolation. Real clinical populations are rarely this clean.


The glenoid co-develops embryonically with the acromion and other parts of scapular anatomy. What role does it plan in posterior stability?

It is worth noting that the acromion, glenoid, scapular body, humerus, posterior labrum, posterior capsule, and rotator cuff all arise from the same embryonic mesenchymal condensation during upper limb development. A single disruption to this shared developmental program could plausibly produce co-occurring abnormalities across all of these structures simultaneously. Perhaps acromial morphology is not the primary cause of posterior instability but instead is the most radiographically accessible expression of the scapular morphotype that is visible on a scapular Y-view.

Consideration of posterior instability requires consideration of the critical role the glenoid plays in glenohumeral stability through the concavity compression mechanism.  Glenohumeral stability from concavity-compression: A quantitative analysis found the effective glenoid depth and stability ratios were lowest with loading of the humeral head in the posterior direction, meaning that the glenohumeral joint is constitutively most vulnerable posteriorly, especially since the great majority of shoulder functions are in forward flexion, a position that challenges posterior stability.


Glenoid retroversion is a well-established contributor to posterior instability. Glenoid Retroversion Is an Important Factor for Humeral Head Centration and the Biomechanics of Posterior Shoulder Stability found that every 5° increment produces approximately 2.0mm of additional humeral decentralization; retroversion >10-15° significantly affects joint centralization.

Posterior Shoulder Instability but Not Anterior Shoulder Instability Is Related to Glenoid Version found PSI patients averaged vault retroversion of −21° versus controls (−17.8°). Using chondrolabral version, the retroversion of PSI patients averaged −16.6° versus controls ( −9.2°).


The Influence of Glenoid Retroversion on Posterior Shoulder Instability: A Cadaveric Study each 1° increase in retroversion correlated with a 3.5% decrease in resistance to posterior translation; spontaneous dislocation with an intact labrum occurred at a mean of 22.7° of retroversion. A 4–7° difference in retroversion translates to roughly a 14–25% reduction in posterior restraint from osseous anatomy alone, before any soft tissue or acromial contribution is considered.

Acromion Morphology Is Associated With Glenoid Bone Loss in Posterior Glenohumeral Instability demonstrated that acromial morphology is associated with the severity of glenoid bone loss in posterior instability. Patients without glenoid bone loss had a steeper acromial tilt (58.5°) versus those with ≥13.5% bone loss (67.7°). A flatter acromion tracks with more severe glenoid pathology — consistent with both being expressions of the same underlying developmental abnormality of the scapula.

Thinking outside the glenohumeral box: Hierarchical shape variation of the periarticular anatomy of the scapula using statistical shape modeling demonstrated that glenoid inclination and acromial anatomy represented distinct but related components of overall scapular morphology.

Association of the Posterior Acromion Extension with Glenoid Retroversion: A CT Study in Normal and Osteoarthritic Shoulders  In this 3D morphometric study of 31 normal scapulae, glenoid retroversion correlated significantly with posterior acromial extension, characterized by the acromion posterior angle (APA).  Combining the APA with the acromion length angle (ALA) and acromion tilt angle (ATA) helped improve the correlation. 



Anatomical description of the scapular coordinate system (OXYZ), acromion landmarks (AA, AC), trigonum spinae (TS), angulus inferior (AI), posterior extension of the acromion (AAx), acromion posterior angle (APA), acromion tilt angle (ATA), acromion length angle (ALA), and glenoid retroversion angle (GRA). The three axes (x, y, and z) correspond to postero-anterior, infero-superior, and medio-lateral, respectively.


Can modification of the acromion improve posterior stability in cadavers?

The biomechanical evidence that posterior acromial bone grafting can restore stability was generated in cadavers with normal glenoid anatomy — a condition that does not describe typical patients.


Eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were biomechanically tested in a shoulder simulator in the load-and-shift and Jerk test positions.  





The force needed to displace the humeral head by 50% of the glenoid width decreased between 23% and 60% in moderate to severe acromial malalignment (high and flat acromion) and increased up to 122% following surgical correction of acromial alignment (low and steep acromion) when compared to the native condition. 


A Posterior Acromial Bone Block Augmentation Is Biomechanically Effective at Restoring the Force Required To Translate the Humeral Head Posteriorly in a Cadaveric, Posterior Glenohumeral Instability Model in ten fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens, a posterior acromial bone block (PABB) increased resistance force to humeral head translation compared to the instability state.



Posterior Shoulder Stability Can Be Restored by Posterior Acromial Bone Grafting (Scapinelli) in a Cadaveric Biomechanical Model With Normal Glenoid Anatomy assessed the stabilizing effect of a posterior acromial bone graft (PABG) in moderate and severe acromial malalignment (high and flat).

At 30° of flexion, the force needed to displace the humeral head 50% increased by 659% when a PABG was added to a moderately malaligned acromion and by 1249% when a PABG was added to a severely malaligned acromion.  Experimentally, a PABG provided comparable or superior stability to that achieved with surgical acromial reorientation while representing a technically simpler and potentially less invasive approach. While these biomechanical results for acromial correction in cadavers with normal glenoid anatomy and without soft tissue contribution are striking, they may not translate to clinical application where the glenoid and soft tissues are likely to be abnormal.  

Can modification of the acromion improve posterior stability in patients?

The entire published clinical evidence base for isolated acromial correction in posterior shoulder instability consists of a single case series by Roberto Scapinelli, an Italian surgeon who first performed the procedure in 1970 and published results in 2006. This single series has never been independently replicated in over 50 years. Posterior addition acromioplasty in the treatment of recurrent posterior instability of the shoulder reported an extraarticular surgical procedure for the treatment of recurrent posterior instability of the shoulder by grafting an inverted segment of the scapular spine to the posterior border of the acromion so that it exerts a slight pressure over the infraspinatus muscle pressing the humerus forward. 


The Scapinelli series in plain terms: n=10 patients. One surgeon. 1970-2006. No controls. No validated outcome instruments. No independent replication. No imaging follow-up for glenoid version or labral integrity. This is the weakest possible form of clinical evidence — and it is all we have. I could find no other reports of isolated acromial surgeries in patients. 

A series of biomechanical studies suggested that posterior instability is associated with both glenoid and acromial malalignment and that neither isolated glenoid correction nor isolated acromial correction fully restored normal kinematics — only combined correction of both did. Posterior Stability of the Shoulder Depends on Acromial Anatomy: A Biomechanical Study of 3D Surface ModelsScapular Morphology and Posterior Shoulder Stability: Biomechanical Evidence From an Advanced Cadaveric Shoulder SimulatorEven with both acromial and glenoid correction, these studies showed approximately 20% residual posterior translation compared to intact shoulders. Residual instability may reflect the soft tissue components (labrum, capsule, rotator cuff) that cannot be addressed by osseous correction alone.

I found one preliminary study that combined acromial osteotomy with glenoid osteotomy. Presumably the two procedues were combined because the authors were not satisfied with the acromial osteotomy alone. Scapular (glenoid and acromion) osteotomies for the treatment of posterior shoulder instability: technique and preliminary results reported the outcome after a “scapular (acromion and glenoid) corrective osteotomy" for posterior escape in 9 consecutive patients. One case had persistent subluxation, and osteoarthritis progression. The other 8 patients had improved clinical scores. In 5 patients the humeral head was recentered.


Current thinking regarding the role of acromial surgery in the management of posterior instability may be reflected in Acromion Morphology Is Associated With Failure of Arthroscopic Posterior Capsulolabral Repair finding that while failure of arthroscopic posterior shoulder capsulolabral repair was associated with a higher acromion the authors did not recommend surgical intervention (posterior acromial bone graft or posterior acromial osteotomy) to change acromial anatomy in the treatment of posterior shoulder instability. This direct statement from proponents of the acromial association with posterior instability should help inform clinical decision-making.

Going forward

The strongest clinical application of acromial morphology data may lie in diagnosis and risk stratification, not operative planning. A high, flat posterior acromion on imaging should prompt the clinician to think more broadly about the shoulder's developmental anatomy — to look carefully at glenoid version, labral quality on MRI, posterior capsular volume, and rotator cuff muscle belly cross-section. It is a signal that the whole posterior stabilizing complex may be developmentally underprogrammed, not just the acromion. 

The recognition of the B0 glenoid as a precursor to shoulder arthritis raises the question of whether identifying this developmental syndrome early — high acromion, glenoid retroversion, and posterior subluxation together — should inform decisions about some type of surgical intervention before the shoulder progresses to the arthritic B2. Answering that question will require thoughtful clinical research.


Trying to figure this out.

 Acorn Woodpecker
Tucson
2020


Here are some videos that are of shoulder interest
Shoulder arthritis - what you need to know (see this link).
How to x-ray the shoulder (see this link).
The ream and run procedure (see this link)
The total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link)
The cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty (see this link).
The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears (see this link)
Shoulder rehabilitation exercises (see this link). 

Friday, April 14, 2023

Lateralized reverse total shoulder: abduction damage to the acromion

Lateralization of a reverse total shoulder is used by some surgeons with the goal of enhancing stability, improving strength, and reducing scapular notching.


One of the potential drawbacks of this approach is unwanted contact between the tuberosity and the undersurface of the acromion when the arm is abducted.

The authors of Subacromial notching after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty suggest that damage to the acromion may be caused by abduction impingement after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with a lateralized design. They reviewed the medical records of 125 patients who underwent RSA with the design shown below



They defined subacromial notching (SaN) as subacromial erosion observed at the final follow-up but not on the X-ray three months after surgery. They found that SaN occurred in 12.8% (16/125) of enrolled patients. Greater postoperative humeral lateralization offset (HL) was a risk factor for subacromial notching.



The VAS and ASES scores at the final follow-up were significantly worse in patients with subacromial notching. 

Comment: Contact between the greater tuberosity and the acromion can limit the range of abduction and can weaken the acromion.

On AP radiographs it is straightforward to see the risk of acromion-tuberosity contact. 
First, fit a circle to the glenosphere


then draw a line segment from the center of the glenosphere to the tip of the tuberosity


finally draw a second line segment of the same length from the glenosphere center to the acromion and note whether there would be contact in abduction.


Of course it is desirable to check for this unwanted contact while surgical the incision is still open. This can be simply done by abducting the arm to see if the tuberosity clears the acromion. If it does not, it may be possible to avoid unwanted contact by shaving bone from the tuberosity. If this is insufficient, the surgeon can consider modifying the implant or its position.

You can support cutting edge shoulder research that is leading to better care for patients with shoulder problems, click on this link.

Follow on twitter: https://twitter.com/shoulderarth
Follow on facebook: click on this link
Follow on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/frederick.matsen
Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-matsen-88b1a8133/

Here are some videos that are of shoulder interest
Shoulder arthritis - what you need to know (see this link).
How to x-ray the shoulder (see this link).
The ream and run procedure (see this link).
The total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty (see this link).
The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears (see this link).
Shoulder rehabilitation exercises (see this link).

Saturday, August 29, 2020

The world is not flat and neither is the acromion.

Our former fellow Mike Moskal sent a concise set of his personal dissections that reinforce Codman's 1930 observations that the coracoacromial arch is a stabilizing concavity for the proximal humerus and "should not be sacrificed at any procedure". 

Here are some great photographs of his dissections that make the point.











 

He also included a couple of related articles, see this link and this link.


Comment: In his 1934 book, E. A. Codman wrote prophetically, "The coracoacromial ligament has an important duty and should not be thoughtlessly divided at any operation."

We have not found it necessary to divide the CAL "at any operation." Not only is it a halyard stabilizing the scapular spine and acromion to the robust coracoid process, as suggest by this study, but it is also an essential element of the stabilizing coracoacromial arch.


which, when sacrificed, risks anterosuperior escape



==
To subscribe to this blog, enter your email in the box to your right that looks like the below



===
How you can support research in shoulder surgery Click on this link.

We have a new set of shoulder youtubes about the shoulder, check them out at this link.

Be sure to visit "Ream and Run - the state of the art" regarding this radically conservative approach to shoulder arthritis at this link and this link

Use the "Search" box to the right to find other topics of interest to you.

You may be interested in some of our most visited web pages  arthritis, total shoulder, ream and runreverse total shoulderCTA arthroplasty, and rotator cuff surgery as well as the 'ream and run essentials'

 


Friday, January 31, 2020

The acromion is innocent

Subacromial Decompression Is Not Beneficial for the Management of Rotator Cuff Disease

These authors reviewed the available evidence on subacromial decompression (know by some as SAD). Even though evidence in support of this procedure is lacking, it is still one of the most common surgical procedures performed on the shoulder.   Their conclusions are listed below.

» Currently, the 2 most common indications for performing a subacromial decompression are subacromial pain syndrome refractory to nonoperative treatment and repair of rotator cuff tears.
» Multiple, high-quality randomized controlled trials showed that subacromial decompression did not provide improvements in pain, function, or quality of life compared with a placebo surgical procedure or other conservative treatments for patients with subacromial pain syndrome.
» Similarly, several randomized controlled trials failed to prove any functional or structural advantage when performing rotator cuff repairs with or without subacromial decompression.
» Imaging studies showed that subacromial decompression did not prevent the development or progression of rotator cuff tears. Moreover, similar retear rates were reported between patients in which rotator cuff repairs were performed with or without subacromial decompression.
» In conclusion, subacromial decompression did not provide any clinical or structurally substantial benefit for the treatment of subacromial pain syndrome or the surgical repair of rotator cuff tears.

This review supports the findings published a decade ago: Published evidence relevant to the diagnosis of impingement syndrome of the shoulder.  That abstract is reproduced below

BACKGROUND: Acromioplasty for impingement syndrome of the shoulder is one of the most common orthopaedic surgical procedures. The rate with which this procedure is performed has increased dramatically. This investigation sought high levels of evidence in the published literature related to five hypotheses pertinent to the concept of the impingement syndrome and the rationale supporting acromioplasty in its treatment.

METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of articles relevant to the following hypotheses: (1) clinical signs and tests can reliably differentiate the so-called impingement syndrome from other conditions, (2) clinically common forms of rotator cuff abnormality are caused by contact with the coracoacromial arch, (3) contact between the coracoacromial arch and the rotator cuff does not occur in normal shoulders, (4) spurs seen on the anterior aspect of the acromion extend beyond the coracoacromial ligament and encroach on the underlying rotator cuff, and (5) successful treatment of the impingement syndrome requires surgical alteration of the acromion and/or coracoacromial arch. Three of the authors independently reviewed each article and determined the type of study, the level of evidence, and whether it supported the concept of the impingement syndrome. Articles with level-III or IV evidence were excluded from the final analysis.

RESULTS: These hypotheses were not supported by high levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS: The concept of impingement syndrome was originally introduced to cover the full range of rotator cuff disorders, as it was recognized that rotator cuff tendinosis, partial tears, and complete tears could not be reliably differentiated by clinical signs alone. The current availability of sonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and arthroscopy now enable these conditions to be accurately differentiated. Nonoperative and operative treatments are currently being used for the different rotator cuff abnormalities. Future clinical investigations can now focus on the indications for and the outcome of treatments for the specific rotator cuff diagnoses. It may be time to replace the nonspecific diagnosis of so-called impingement syndrome by using modern methods to differentiate tendinosis, partial tears, and complete tears of the rotator cuff.

Comment: The coracoacromial arch is an important stabilizer of the proximal humerus against superiorly directed loads. Contact between the cuff and the arc is normal. Sacrifice of this structure can lead to anterosuperior escape and pseudoparalysis.


=====
We have a new set of shoulder youtubes about the shoulder, check them out at this link.

Be sure to visit "Ream and Run - the state of the art" regarding this radically conservative approach to shoulder arthritis at this link and this link

Use the "Search" box to the right to find other topics of interest to you.


You may be interested in some of our most visited web pages arthritis, total shoulder, ream and runreverse total shoulderCTA arthroplasty, and rotator cuff surgery as well as the 'ream and run essentials'





Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Changes acromial shape in patients with rotator cuff tears - cause or effect?

Acromial roof in patients with concentric osteoarthritis and massive rotator cuff tears: multiplanar analysis of 115 computed tomography scans

These authors point out that there are differences in scapular shape between shoulders with rotator cuff tears (RCT) and osteoarthritic shoulders (OA). They analyzed the orientation and shape of the acromion in 70 shoulders with massive degenerative RCT (apparently those having subsequent reverse total shoulders) and 45 shoulders with concentric OA (apparently those having subsequent anatomic total shoulders) using multiplanar computed tomography (CT) analysis.

They found that lateral acromial roof extension was an average of 4.6 mm wider and the acromial area was an average of 156 mm2 larger in RCT than in COA (P < .001). Significant differences of the lateral extension of the acromion margin were limited to the anterior two-thirds. Acromial roof orientation in RCT was average of 10.8° more “externally rotated” (axial plane: P < .001) and an average of 7.8° more tilted downward (coronal plane: P < .001) than in COA. The glenoid in RCT was an average of 5.5° (P < .001) more covered posteriorly compared with COA.

Comment: It is understood that loading of the acromion is different in patients with massive cuff tears than in patients with concentric osteoarthritis and that these changes are reflected by radiographic changes in acromial shape. Compare the acromial shape in the upper AP x-ray of a shoulder with a massive cuff tear with that in the lower AP x-ray of a shoulder with concentric osteoarthritis.


It seems likely that the acromial changes are likely to be adaptive in response to the change in loading of the acromion in patients with massive cuff tears. In 1972 Neer observed "a characteristic ridge of proliferative spurs and excrescences on the undersurface of the anterior process (of the acromion), apparently caused by repeated impingement of the rotator cuff and the humeral head, with traction of the coracoacromial ligament. . . . Without exception it was the anterior lip and undersurface of the anterior third that was involved."(see this link)

 Evidence remains lacking that surgical alteration of the acromial shape can change the natural history of cuff disease (see this link) or of osteoarthritis.

====
Use the "Search" box to the right to find other topics of interest to you.


You may be interested in some of our most visited web pages including:shoulder arthritis, total shoulder, ream and runreverse total shoulderCTA arthroplasty, and rotator cuff surgery as well as the 'ream and run essentials'

Thursday, November 2, 2017

The critical acromial point and the critical shoulder angle, a critique

The critical acromial point: the anatomic location of the lateral acromion in the critical shoulder angle

The critical shoulder angle (CSA) is the angle between the line connecting the superior border with the inferior border of the glenoid and the line connecting the most lateral point of the acromion with the inferior border of the glenoid on a true anteroposterior (AP) radiograph. High CSAs (> 35°) have been associated with rotator cuff tears, whereas low CSAs (< 30°) have been associated with glenohumeral osteoarthritis.



These authors state that acromioplasty has been proposed as a means of altering elevated critical shoulder angles (CSAs). In cadavers, they considered the effect of a virtual acromioplasty of 2.5 and 5 mm in specimens with a CSA greater than 35°.

Using a "critical acromial point" they found that  2.5-mm acromial resection failed to reduce the CSA to 35° or less in 7 of 13 shoulders, whereas a 5-mm resection reduced the CSA to 35° or less in 12 of 13. They suggest that these data can guide surgeons in where and how to alter the CSA if future studies demonstrate a clinical benefit to surgically modifying this radiographic parameter.

Comment: This study brings up a number of interesting questions:

(1) is the relationship between observed CSA and cuff disease one of cause and effect or just one of association? In other words, does cuff disease change the CSA, does a certain CSA cause cuff disease, or are cuff disease and CSA each the result of the patient's genetics. Demonstrating causation is tricky business as pointed out by Hill at al who showed the causation of scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps. They developed nine criteria:
•Strength of association
•Consistency of association
•Specificity of the association
•Temporal relationship of the association
•Dose response of the effect
•Biological plausibility
•Coherence
•Experimental evidence
•Analogy


(2) if an increased CSA is related to cuff pathology, is it reasonable to think that modifying the CSA will change the natural history of cuff disease. As one wag said, "does the fact that wide set eyes are associated with higher IQ (see this link), suggest that facial surgery will alter intelligence"?

(3) If the CSA is surgically reduced, will this make the shoulder more at risk for osteoarthritis (a condition that has been associated with lower CSA)?

(4) What are the downsides of acromioplasty in terms of loss of deltoid origin and loss of the superior stability of the coracoacromial arch?

J===
The reader may also be interested in these posts:





Information about shoulder exercises can be found at this link.

Use the "Search" box to the right to find other topics of interest to you.

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Acromioplasty - is it benign?

The effect of coracoacromial ligament excision and acromioplasty on the amount of rotator cuff force production necessary to restore intact glenohumeral biomechanics.


These authors point out that coracoacromial ligament (CAL) excision and acromioplasty increase superior and anterosuperior glenohumeral translation. They used a cadaver model to estimate how much of an increase in rotator cuff force is required to re-establish intact glenohumeral biomechanics after acromioplasty.

Nine cadaveric shoulders were subjected to loading in the superior and anterosuperior directions in the intact state after CAL excision, acromioplasty, and recording of the translations. The rotator cuff force was then increased to normalize glenohumeral biomechanics.

At 150 and 200 N of superior and anterosuperior loading, an increase in the rotator cuff force of 25% was required to eliminate the increased translation resulting from CAL excision.

At 150 and 200 N of superior and anterosuperior loading, an increase in the rotator cuff force of 25% and 30%, respectively, was required to eliminate the increased translation resulting from acromioplasty and CAL excision.

The authors concluded that after subacromial decompression, the rotator cuff has to increase  its force production to maintain baseline glenohumeral mechanics. Under many circumstances, in vivo force requirements may be even greater after surgical attenuation of the coracoacromial arch.

Comment: As Codman pointed out in 1934 "The coracoacromial ligament has an important duty and should not be thoughtlessly divided at any operation." 

He recognized then, as we should today, that the coracoacromial arch provides an important stabilizing function resisting the superiorly directed force applied by the deltoid or when pushing up from a chair, bed, floor or bar. He pointed to the normal articulation between the superior aspect of the cuff and the undersurface of the coracoacromial arch. 


The center of curvature of the arch is the same as the center of curvature of the humeral head.


The stabilizing effect of the arch remains the same if there is ossification of part of the coracoacromial ligament.

We have previously demonstrated that the acromion is loaded when superiorly directed force is applied through the humeral head (whether or not the cuff is intact).
 When the superior cuff tissue is absent, superiorly directed loads applied to the humeral head produce superior translation of the head until it is stopped by the coracoacromial arch.
Sacrifice of the coracoacromial arch in the cuff deficient shoulder is a common cause of anterosuperior escape and pseudoparalysis.

Where does that leave the concept of 'impingement'? See this link.