Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Education
  2. Subacromial...
  3. Subacromial decompression surgery for adults with shoulder pain: a clinical practice guideline
Practice Rapid Recommendations

Subacromial decompression surgery for adults with shoulder pain: a clinical practice guideline

BMJ 2019; 364 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l294 (Published 06 February 2019) Cite this as: BMJ 2019;364:l294

Linked Editorial

Subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain

Visual summary of recommendation

or Subacromial decompression surgery Nonoperativemanagement only Arthroscopic subacromial decompression plusnonoperative management Including guided physical therapy, exercise programmes, NSAIDs, and steroid injections Interventions compared Recommendation Population Adults with shoulderpain for more than 3 months Does not apply to patients with: Including: Traumatic shoulder pain Subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) Rotator cuff disease (RCD) Other differential diagnoses

We recommend against subacromial decompression surgery Moredetails Strong All or nearly all informed people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for almost everyone. Weak Most people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for the majority, but not for everyone. Weak Most people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for the majority, but not for everyone. Strong All or nearly all informed people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for almost everyone.

Comparison of benefits and harms

Favours surgery Evidence quality Visual analogue scale (0–10) After 1 year No important difference The panel found that this difference was not important for most patients, because the intervention effects were negligible and/or very imprecise, for example confidence intervals that include both important benefit and harm Favours nonoperative management Evidence presented here shows the comparison between surgery and placebo surgery (diagnostic arthroscopy). Higher quality evidence was available for this comparison than for surgery versus nonoperative management, and the authors believe it is therefore a more useful guide to the effectiveness of surgery. Lower quality evidence on surgery versus nonoperative management is available in MAGIC app, using the link at the bottom of the graphic

No important difference Pain (Mean) High More 2.6 2.9

Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision No serious concerns Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Surgery has little or no effect on pain at 1 year A separate review found that the “minimally important difference” for patients would be an improvement of 1.5 on this scale 1.5 MID High GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

Constant score scale (0–100) No important difference Function (Mean) High More 72 69

A separate review found that the “minimally important difference” for patients would be an improvement of 8.3 on this scale 8.3 MID Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision No serious concerns Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Surgery has little or no effecton function at 1 year High GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

No important difference EQ-5D scale (-0.59–1) Quality of life (Mean) High More 0.70 0.73

A separate review found that the “minimally important difference” for patients would be an improvement of 0.07 on this scale 0.07 MID Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision No serious concerns Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Surgery has little or no effecton quality of life at 1 year High GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

635 Global perceived effect Moderate More Events per 1000 people No important difference 699

Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision Serious Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Surgery probably has little or no global perceived effect at 1 year Moderate GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

No important difference At work Low More 859 818 Number of participants working at the time of outcome assessment

Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision Very serious Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Surgery may have little or no effect on whether a person is working after 1 year Low GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low
Events per 1000 people Within 30 days

6 fewer 0 Serious harms Moderate More 6

Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision No serious concerns Indirectness Serious Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Surgery probably slightly increases risk of serious harms Moderate GRADE score, because of: Data from a well performed registry study of mixed surgical procedures, resulting in indirectevidence for subacromial decompression Observed harms include: Deep vein thrombosis (20.0%) Pulmonary embolism (18.6%) Pneumonia (13.8%) Sepsis and serious infections (9.0%) Bleeding transfusion (8.3%) GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low
See patient decision aids
See all outcomes
Recovery time varies from months to years and may include sick leave Day surgery with general anaesthesia and/or nerve block After surgery, 2 weeks off work are typically needed Avoid heavy lifting for one to three weeks, overhead activities for 3 months The panel believes that all or almost all patients would place a high value on avoiding even minimal risk of complications and burden from surgery, if it is not helpful. Values and preferences Key practical issues Surgery Nonoperative management

©BMJ Publishing Group Limited.

Disclaimer: This infographic is not a validated clinical decision aid. This information is provided without any representations, conditions or warranties that it is accurate or up to date. BMJ and its licensors assume no responsibility for any aspect of treatment administered with the aid of this information. Any reliance placed on this information is strictly at the user's own risk. For the full disclaimer wording see BMJ's terms and conditions: https://www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/

Find recommendations, evidence summaries and consultation decision aids for use in your practice
Author Information

Please note:
  • Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles.
  • Your name will be published with your response. Include your email address in the text of your response if you want others to see it.
  • Once posted, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The BMJ may remove or edit responses at its absolute discretion, including when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
  • A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed
  • Rapid responses have their own URL and are retrievable in an advanced search of thebmj.com in perpetuity.
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication before sending your response. See our patient consent form.
  • The word limit for rapid responses is 600 words (excluding references).
  • By submitting this rapid response your are agreeing to our full rapid response requirements.
  • Please do not include original data in your response, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you are able to include a reference.

Note: this will be visible to readers on the site. Please only include information you are comfortable with being published.

Statement of Competing Interests

A competing interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). Find out more.

Compose response

Note: avoid using generic titles like 'in response to the authors' - be specific.

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Terms and Conditions

Read terms and conditions

Vertical Tabs

Back to top