Finnish Subacromial Impingement Arthroscopy Controlled Trial (FIMPACT): A protocol for a randomised trial comparing arthroscopic subacromial decompression and diagnostic arthroscopy (placebo control), with an exercise therapy control, in the treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 5, 2017, Pages

  Paavola, Mika ^a   Malmivaara, Antti ^b   Taimela, Simo ^a   Kanto, Kari ^c   Järvinen, Teppo LN ^a  

^a HELSINKI UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^b NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c Tampere City Hospital   (Finland)

Author keywords

Acromion; Acromioplasty; Arthroscopy; Impingement; Physiotherapy; Placebo; Randomised; Sham; Shoulder; Syndrome; Trial

Indexed keywords

15D INSTRUMENT; ADULT; ARM MOVEMENT; ARTHROSCOPE; ARTHROSCOPIC SUBACROMIAL DECOMPRESSION; ARTHROSCOPIC SURGERY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONSTANT MURLEY (SCORE); CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FINLAND; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KINESIOTHERAPY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE ASSESSMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REOPERATION; REST; RETURN TO WORK; SHORT FORM 36; SHOULDER ARTHROSCOPY; SHOULDER IMPINGEMENT SYNDROME; SHOULDER PAIN; SHOULDER SURGERY; SIMPLE SHOULDER TEST; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; AGED; ARTHROSCOPY; CLINICAL TRIAL; DECOMPRESSION SURGERY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; ARTHROSCOPY; DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; EXERCISE THERAPY; FEMALE; FINLAND; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESEARCH DESIGN; SHOULDER IMPINGEMENT SYNDROME; SHOULDER PAIN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85020302105     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014087     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Paloneva J, Lepola V, Karppinen J, et al. Declining incidence of acromioplasty in Finland. Acta Orthop 2015;86:220-4.
2. Vitale MA, Arons RR, Hurwitz S, et al. The rising incidence of acromioplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:1842-50.
3. Engebretsen K, Grotle M, Bautz-Holter E, et al. Radial extracorporeal shockwave treatment compared with supervised exercises in patients with subacromial pain syndrome: single blind randomised study. BMJ 2009;339:b3360.
4. Diercks R, Bron C, Dorrestijn O, et al. Dutch Orthopaedic Association. Guideline for diagnosis and treatment of subacromial pain syndrome: a multidisciplinary review by the Dutch Orthopaedic Association. Acta Orthop 2014;85:314-22.
5. Oh LS, Wolf BR, Hall MP, et al. Indications for rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007;455:52-63.
6. Aurora A, McCarron J, Iannotti JP, et al. Commercially available extracellular matrix materials for rotator cuff repairs: state of the art and future trends. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16(5 Suppl):S171-S178.
7. Michener LA, McClure PW, Karduna AR. Anatomical and biomechanical mechanisms of subacromial impingement syndrome. Clin Biomech 2003;18:369-79.
8. Koester MC, George MS, Kuhn JE. Shoulder impingement syndrome. Am J Med 2005;118:452-5.
9. Neer CS. Anterior acromioplasty for the chronic impingement syndrome in the shoulder: a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1972;54:41-50.
10. Yu E, Cil A, Harmsen WS, et al. Arthroscopy and the dramatic increase in frequency of anterior acromioplasty from 1980 to 2005: an epidemiologic study. Arthroscopy 2010;26(9 Suppl):S142-S147.
11. Judge A, Murphy RJ, Maxwell R, et al. Temporal trends and geographical variation in the use of subacromial decompression and rotator cuff repair of the shoulder in England. Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:70-4.
12. Dong W, Goost H, Lin XB, et al. Treatments for shoulder impingement syndrome: a PRISMA systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine 2015;94:e510.
13. Shi LL, Edwards TB. The role of acromioplasty for management of rotator cuff problems: where is the evidence? Adv Orthop 2012;2012:1-5.
14. Brox JI, Staff PH, Ljunggren AE, et al. Arthroscopic surgery compared with supervised exercises in patients with rotator cuff disease (stage II impingement syndrome). BMJ 1993;307:899-903.
15. Haahr JP, Østergaard S, Dalsgaard J, et al. Exercises versus arthroscopic decompression in patients with subacromial impingement: a randomised, controlled study in 90 cases with a one year follow up. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:760-4.
16. Ketola S, Lehtinen J, Rousi T, et al. No evidence of long-term benefits of arthroscopicacromioplasty in the treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome: Five-year results of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 2013;2:132-9.
17. Ernst E, Resch KL. Concept of true and perceived placebo effects. BMJ 1995;311:551-3.
18. Wartolowska K, Judge A, Hopewell S, et al. Use of placebo controls in the evaluation of surgery: systematic review. BMJ 2014;348:g3253.
19. Buchbinder R. Meniscectomy in patients with knee osteoarthritis and a meniscal tear? N Engl J Med 2013;368:1740-1.
20. Beard D, Rees J, Rombach I, et al. CSAW Study Group. The CSAW Study (Can Shoulder Arthroscopy Work?) - a placebo-controlled surgical intervention trial assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic subacromial decompression for shoulder pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2015;16:210.
21. Ellman H. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression: analysis of oneto three-year results. Arthroscopy 1987;3:173-81.
22. Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Porucznik CA, et al. Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009;18:927-32.
23. Constant CR, G. Murley AH. A clinical method of functional Assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987;160:164-4.
24. Henseler JF, Kolk A, van der Zwaal P, et al. The minimal detectable change of the Constant score in impingement, full-thickness tears, and massive rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015;24(3):376-81.
25. Matsen FA, Ziegler DW, DeBartolo SE. Patient self-assessment of health status and function in glenohumeral degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1995;4:345-51.
26. Godfrey J, Hamman R, Lowenstein S, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the simple shoulder test: psychometric properties by age and injury type. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16:260-7.
27. Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Green A, et al. Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:296-303.
28. Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med 2001;33:328-36.
29. Moock J, Kohlmann T. Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. Qual Life Res 2008;17:485-95.
30. Bowling A. Measuring health. A review of quality of life measurement scales. 3rd ed. Berkshire: Open University Press, 2004.
31. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-83.
32. Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, et al. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 2002;324:1417.
33. Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A, et al. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear. N Engl J Med 2013;369:2515-24.
34. Ranstam J. Multiple P-values and Bonferroni correction. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2016;24:763-4.
35. Sun X, Ioannidis JP, Agoritsas T, et al. How to use a subgroup analysis: users' guide to the medical literature. JAMA 2014;311:405-11.
36. Neer CS. 2nd. impingement lesions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1983;173:70-7.
37. Dong W, Goost H, Lin XB, et al. Treatments for shoulder impingement syndrome: a PRISMA systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine 2015;94:e510.
38. Ketola S, Lehtinen J, Rousi T, et al. Which patients do not recover from shoulder impingement syndrome, either with operative treatment or with nonoperative treatment? Acta Orthop 2015;86:641-6.
39. Tangtrakulwanich B, Kapkird A. Analyses of possible risk factors for subacromial impingement syndrome. World J Orthop 2012;3:5-9.
40. Bigliani LU MD. April EW The morphology of the acromion and its relationship to rotator cuff tears. Orthop Trans 1986;10:228.
41. Järvinen TL, Sihvonen R, Bhandari M, et al. Blinded interpretation of study results can feasibly and effectively diminish interpretation Bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:769-72.
42. Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of total knee replacement. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1597-606.
43. Bhandari M, Jeray KJ, Petrisor BA, et al. A trial of Wound Irrigation in the initial management of Open Fracture Wounds. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2629-41.
44. Jonas WB, Crawford C, Colloca L, et al. To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials. BMJ Open 2015;5:e009655.
45. Haynes B. Can it work? does it work? is it worth it? the testing of healthcare interventions is evolving. BMJ 1999;319:652-3.
46. Djulbegovic B, Paul A. From efficacy to effectiveness in the face of uncertainty: indication creep and prevention creep. JAMA 2011;305:2005-6.
47. Järvinen TL, Sievänen H, Kannus P, et al. The true cost of pharmacological disease prevention. BMJ 2011;342:d2175.
48. Donigan JA, Wolf BR. Arthroscopic subacromial decompression: acromioplasty versus bursectomy alone-does it really matter? a systematic review. Iowa Orthop J 2011;31:121-6.
49. Cates C, Karner C. Clinical importance cannot be ruled out using mean difference alone. BMJ 2015;351:h5496.
50. Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, et al. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ 1998;316:690-3.
51. Snapinn SM, Jiang Q. Responder analyses and the assessment of a clinically relevant treatment effect. Trials 2007;8:31.
52. Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Porucznik CA, et al. Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009;18:927-32.
53. Norman G, Monteiro S, Salama S. Sample size calculations: should the emperor's clothes be off the peg or made to measure? BMJ 2012;345:e5278.
54. Goodman SN, Berlin JA. The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:200-6.
55. Lenza M, Buchbinder R, Takwoingi Y, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and ultrasonography for assessing rotator cuff tears in people with shoulder pain for whom surgery is being considered. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;9:CD009020.