Skip to main content
OrthoVellum
Knowledge Hub

Study

  • Topics
  • MCQs
  • ISAWE
  • Operative Surgery
  • Flashcards

Company

  • About Us
  • Editorial Policy
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA
  • Refund Policy

Support

  • Help Center
  • Accessibility
  • Report an Issue
OrthoVellum

© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not affiliated with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Subacromial Impingement Syndrome

Back to Topics
Contents
0%

Subacromial Impingement Syndrome

Comprehensive guide to subacromial impingement syndrome - anatomy, pathophysiology, clinical assessment, conservative and surgical management for Orthopaedic exam preparation

complete
Updated: 2025-12-24
High Yield Overview

SUBACROMIAL IMPINGEMENT SYNDROME

Shoulder Pain | Rotator Cuff Pathology | Conservative First | Surgery for Refractory Cases

44-65%of shoulder pain presentations
80-90%respond to conservative treatment
40-60peak age (years)
3-6 monthstrial before considering surgery

NEER STAGES

Stage I
PatternEdema and hemorrhage
TreatmentConservative
Stage II
PatternFibrosis and tendinitis
TreatmentConservative ± Surgery
Stage III
PatternBone spurs and tendon tears
TreatmentOften surgical

Critical Must-Knows

  • Primary impingement = structural narrowing (acromion, AC joint) vs Secondary impingement = rotator cuff weakness/instability
  • Neer test (passive forward flexion) and Hawkins-Kennedy test (IR at 90° flexion) - highest sensitivity when combined
  • Conservative treatment for 3-6 months before considering surgery - includes NSAIDs, physiotherapy, subacromial injection
  • Subacromial decompression = arthroscopic acromioplasty + bursectomy - controversial efficacy vs sham surgery
  • Imaging - X-ray for bone abnormalities (acromion shape, spurs), MRI for rotator cuff tears and inflammation

Examiner's Pearls

  • "
    Most common cause of shoulder pain in adults over 40 years
  • "
    Combination of Neer and Hawkins-Kennedy tests increases diagnostic sensitivity to over 90%
  • "
    CSAW trial (2018) showed no benefit of arthroscopic decompression over placebo surgery - controversial
  • "
    Bigliani classification of acromion shape (Type I flat, II curved, III hooked) - Type III highest impingement risk

Clinical Imaging

Imaging Gallery

Plain radiograph of right shoulder showing small degenerative cysts at the site of insertion of the supraspinatus tendon on the greater tuberosity (arrow), indicative of rotator cuff tendinopathy.
Click to expand
Plain radiograph of right shoulder showing small degenerative cysts at the site of insertion of the supraspinatus tendon on the greater tuberosity (arCredit: Murray JC et al. via Case Rep Orthop via Open-i (NIH) (Open Access (CC BY))
Coronal PD SPAIR magnetic resonance image of right shoulder showing moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis of the acromioclavicular joint (arrow), without any conflicting osteophytes in regard to the under
Click to expand
Coronal PD SPAIR magnetic resonance image of right shoulder showing moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis of the acromioclavicular joint (arrow), without Credit: Murray JC et al. via Case Rep Orthop via Open-i (NIH) (Open Access (CC BY))
Sagittal T1 TSE magnetic resonance image of right shoulder showing a homogenous lesion (arrow) compatible with an intermuscular lipoma under the posterior aspect of the deltoid, extending to the under
Click to expand
Sagittal T1 TSE magnetic resonance image of right shoulder showing a homogenous lesion (arrow) compatible with an intermuscular lipoma under the posteCredit: Murray JC et al. via Case Rep Orthop via Open-i (NIH) (Open Access (CC BY))
Preoperative anteroposterior and axial radiographs showing the bullet in the supraspinatus compartment of the shoulder.
Click to expand
Preoperative anteroposterior and axial radiographs showing the bullet in the supraspinatus compartment of the shoulder.Credit: Galland A et al. via Case Rep Orthop via Open-i (NIH) (Open Access (CC BY))

Critical Subacromial Impingement Exam Points

Primary vs Secondary Impingement

Primary = structural narrowing (acromion morphology, spurs, AC joint arthritis). Secondary = rotator cuff weakness or instability causing superior humeral head migration. Treatment differs - address underlying cause.

Neer Staging System

Stage I (under 25 years) = edema/hemorrhage, reversible. Stage II (25-40 years) = fibrosis/tendinitis. Stage III (over 40 years) = bone spurs, tears, irreversible. Guides prognosis and treatment.

Clinical Tests Hierarchy

Neer test (90% sensitive) + Hawkins-Kennedy (87% sensitive) combined approach 95% sensitivity. Neer impingement test (subacromial lidocaine injection eliminates pain) confirms diagnosis.

Surgery Controversy

CSAW trial (2018) showed arthroscopic decompression no better than sham surgery at 1 year. UKUFF trial confirmed findings. Current consensus: surgery only after failed conservative treatment, patient selection critical.

Quick Decision Guide

Patient ScenarioStageFirst-Line TreatmentKey Pearl
Young athlete (under 30), acute onset, normal X-rayStage I - Acute inflammationRest, NSAIDs, early physioRule out instability - may be secondary impingement
40-year-old, chronic pain, failed 2 months physioStage II - Fibrosis/tendinitisSubacromial steroid injection + structured rehabNeed 3-6 months total conservative trial before surgery
Over 60, chronic pain, Type III acromion, small cuff tearStage III - Structural changesConsider surgery if failed conservativeManage cuff tear if present - may need repair not just decompression
Mnemonic

SCABSubacromial Space Anatomical Boundaries

S
Supraspinatus tendon
Inferior boundary - most commonly affected structure
C
Coracoacromial arch
Superior boundary - acromion + CA ligament
A
Acromioclavicular joint
Anterosuperior - osteophytes can narrow space
B
Bursa (subacromial)
Cushions the space - becomes inflamed and thickened

Memory Hook:The SCAB forms when impingement causes inflammation - think of the inflamed bursa!

Mnemonic

FINSNeer Impingement Provocation Test Technique

F
Forward flexion
Passively elevate arm to maximum forward flexion
I
Internal rotation
Arm is internally rotated during elevation
N
Narrow subacromial space
Movement forces greater tuberosity under acromion
S
Scapula stabilized
Examiner stabilizes scapula to prevent compensation

Memory Hook:FINS help the fish swim UP (forward flexion) - Neer test moves arm upward!

Mnemonic

FCHBigliani Acromion Classification

F
Flat (Type I)
Flat undersurface - lowest impingement risk (17%)
C
Curved (Type II)
Curved undersurface - intermediate risk (43%)
H
Hooked (Type III)
Hooked/beaked undersurface - highest risk (70%)

Memory Hook:FCH = From Curve to Hook - progressive impingement risk increases!

Mnemonic

HNPClinical Impingement Tests

H
Hawkins-Kennedy
Most sensitive (92%), flex + IR
N
Neer test
Classic, passive forward flexion
P
Painful arc
60-120 degrees, subacromial

Memory Hook:HNP tests Hunt for Neer's Pathology!

Mnemonic

EFTNeer Staging of Impingement

E
Edema
Stage I - reversible, under 25yo
F
Fibrosis
Stage II - tendinitis, 25-40yo
T
Tear
Stage III - structural, over 40yo

Memory Hook:Edema, Fibrosis, Tears - impingement progresses with age!

Overview and Epidemiology

Subacromial impingement syndrome (SIS) is the most common cause of shoulder pain in adults, accounting for 44-65% of all shoulder pain complaints. The condition results from mechanical compression of the rotator cuff tendons and subacromial bursa within the subacromial space during shoulder elevation.

Why This Topic Matters

SIS represents a spectrum of pathology from acute reversible inflammation to chronic irreversible tendon degeneration and tears. Understanding the distinction between primary (structural) and secondary (functional) impingement is critical for appropriate treatment selection. Recent high-quality RCTs have challenged traditional surgical approaches, making this a high-yield exam topic for evidence-based discussion.

Demographics

  • Age: Peak incidence 40-60 years
  • Gender: Slightly more common in females (1.2:1)
  • Occupation: Overhead workers, athletes (swimmers, throwers)
  • Dominant arm: More commonly affected (60%)

Impact

  • Work loss: Average 6-12 weeks for manual laborers
  • Function: Significant disability in ADLs and sleep
  • Progression: 5-10% develop full-thickness rotator cuff tears annually
  • Economic: $3 billion annual healthcare costs (US data)

Anatomy

Critical Concept: Subacromial Space Dimensions

The subacromial space measures approximately 7-14mm in height. Any reduction below 7mm significantly increases impingement risk. This narrow corridor contains the supraspinatus tendon, long head biceps, subacromial bursa, and rotator cuff interval. Understanding this confined anatomy explains why even small changes (1-2mm bone spurs, bursal thickening) cause significant symptoms.

Primary Impingement (Extrinsic Compression)

Structural factors that narrow the subacromial space:

Anatomical FactorMechanismPrevalenceClinical Significance
Acromion morphology (Bigliani Type III)Hooked acromion reduces clearance by 3-5mm20-30% of populationHighest impingement risk - often requires acromioplasty
Acromial spurs (anterior-inferior)Osteophyte formation narrows outlet30-40% over age 50Common in Stage III disease - visible on X-ray
AC joint arthritis with osteophytesInferior osteophytes encroach on space25-35% over age 60May require AC joint excision (Mumford procedure)
Os acromiale (unfused apophysis)Mobile anterior acromion segment3-8% of populationCan be unstable - may need open fixation or excision

Secondary Impingement (Functional)

Rotator Cuff Weakness

  • Mechanism: Weak cuff cannot depress humeral head during elevation
  • Superior migration: Head translates upward 2-4mm
  • Cycle: Impingement causes pain → disuse → further weakness
  • Treatment: Address weakness, not surgical decompression

Glenohumeral Instability

  • Mechanism: Subtle instability (microinstability) causes abnormal kinematics
  • Population: Young athletes, especially overhead sports
  • Presentation: Positive apprehension/relocation tests alongside impingement signs
  • Treatment: Stability rehabilitation, not acromioplasty

Pathophysiology

Pathological Cascade (Neer Stages)

Progressive Pathology

Typically under 25 yearsStage I: Edema and Hemorrhage

Pathology: Acute inflammatory response to mechanical irritation. Bursal edema, microhemorrhage in supraspinatus tendon.

Reversibility: Completely reversible with rest and conservative treatment.

Clinical: Acute onset pain, positive impingement tests, full strength initially.

Typically 25-40 yearsStage II: Fibrosis and Tendinitis

Pathology: Chronic inflammation leads to bursal thickening (3-5mm), tendon fibrosis, early degeneration.

Reversibility: Partially reversible - fibrosis persists but symptoms can resolve.

Clinical: Chronic pain, night pain common, weakness developing, positive impingement tests.

Typically over 40 yearsStage III: Bone Changes and Tears

Pathology: Anterior-inferior acromial spurs, greater tuberosity changes, partial or full-thickness rotator cuff tears.

Reversibility: Irreversible structural changes - symptom management only.

Clinical: Chronic pain, weakness, limited ROM, crepitus, positive impingement and cuff tear tests.

Classification Systems

Neer Classification of Impingement Stages

Historical but still clinically relevant staging system based on pathological changes and age.

StageAge RangePathologyTreatment Approach
Stage IUnder 25 yearsReversible edema, hemorrhage, inflammationConservative only - rest, NSAIDs, physio
Stage II25-40 yearsFibrosis, tendinitis, bursal thickeningConservative first; surgery if failed 6 months
Stage IIIOver 40 yearsBone spurs, rotator cuff tears, irreversibleOften surgical - may need cuff repair not just decompression

Clinical Application

While age ranges are guidelines, pathological stage matters more than chronological age. A 30-year-old overhead athlete may have Stage III disease, while a 50-year-old office worker may have Stage I. MRI and clinical exam determine stage, not just age.

Bigliani Classification of Acromial Morphology

Describes undersurface shape of acromion on outlet view X-ray (scapular Y lateral with 10° caudal tilt).

TypeDescriptionPrevalenceImpingement Risk
Type I - FlatFlat undersurface, maximum clearance17% of populationLow risk (13% develop impingement)
Type II - CurvedSmooth curved undersurface43% of populationModerate risk (24% develop impingement)
Type III - HookedAnterior hooked/beaked projection40% of populationHigh risk (70% develop impingement)

Controversial Point for Vivas

Debate: Is Type III acromion cause or effect of impingement? Some evidence suggests chronic traction on coracoacromial ligament causes spur formation (secondary to impingement). In exams, acknowledge both possibilities: "Type III acromion is associated with higher impingement rates, though whether this is causative or reactive remains debated."

A balanced perspective acknowledges the evidence while recognizing ongoing debate.

Classification by Mechanism

Distinguishes structural causes from functional causes - critical for treatment selection.

TypeMechanismKey FeaturesTreatment
Primary (Extrinsic)Structural narrowing of subacromial spaceType III acromion, spurs, AC arthritis, os acromialeMay benefit from surgical decompression/acromioplasty
Secondary (Intrinsic)Functional abnormality causing impingementCuff weakness, instability, scapular dyskinesisSurgery fails - must address underlying cause

Treatment Failure Trap

Most common cause of failed acromioplasty: Operating on secondary impingement. A 25-year-old swimmer with positive impingement tests and subtle instability does NOT need acromioplasty - they need stability rehabilitation. Always ask: "Why is this patient impinging?" before recommending surgery.

Clinical Assessment

History

  • Pain location: Anterolateral shoulder, radiates to deltoid insertion
  • Aggravating factors: Overhead activities, reaching behind back, sleeping on affected side
  • Onset: Gradual (chronic) vs acute (after injury/overuse)
  • Occupation/sport: Overhead work (painters, carpenters), swimming, tennis, throwing
  • Night pain: Common - suggests more advanced disease (Stage II-III)
  • Weakness: Difficulty lifting, reaching - suggests cuff involvement

Examination Sequence

  • Look: Muscle atrophy (supraspinatus, infraspinatus wasting), asymmetry
  • Feel: Tenderness anterolateral acromion, AC joint, greater tuberosity
  • Move: Painful arc 60-120° abduction, loss of active elevation
  • Special tests: Impingement tests (Neer, Hawkins-Kennedy), cuff tests (Jobe, external rotation)
  • Neurovascular: Exclude cervical radiculopathy, thoracic outlet syndrome

Key Special Tests

TestTechniquePositive FindingSensitivitySpecificity
Neer Impingement TestPassive forward flexion in IR, scapula stabilizedPain at terminal flexion79-90%31-53%
Hawkins-Kennedy Test90° forward flexion, passive IRPain with IR movement74-92%25-58%
Neer Impingement Injection Test10ml lidocaine subacromial injection, repeat Neer testComplete pain relief confirms impingement75-95%40-70%
Painful ArcActive abduction 0-180°Pain between 60-120° (most 70-110°)33-98%10-81%

Test Interpretation Pearl

Single test specificity is poor - Neer and Hawkins-Kennedy have high sensitivity (good for ruling OUT) but low specificity (many false positives). Combination approach: If BOTH Neer AND Hawkins-Kennedy are positive, combined specificity increases to 70-80%. Impingement injection test is most specific - complete pain relief confirms diagnosis and predicts good response to treatment.

Beware the Cervical Mimic

C5 radiculopathy can present with shoulder pain, weakness, and positive impingement tests. Always check: Spurling test (cervical compression), reflexes (biceps, brachioradialis), dermatomal sensation. Key distinction: Cervical pathology causes pain with neck movement, not just shoulder movement. MRI cervical spine if diagnostic doubt.

Investigations

Imaging Protocol

First LinePlain Radiographs

Views: AP, axillary lateral, outlet view (scapular Y with 10° caudal tilt)

Findings:

  • Acromion shape: Bigliani Type I/II/III on outlet view
  • Acromial spurs: Anterior-inferior undersurface
  • AC joint: Arthritis, inferior osteophytes, distal clavicle hypertrophy
  • Greater tuberosity: Sclerosis, cysts, cortical irregularity (chronic impingement)
  • Os acromiale: Unfused acromial apophysis (axillary view best)
  • Calcific tendinitis: Calcium deposits in rotator cuff

Limitations: Cannot visualize soft tissues (cuff, bursa). Normal X-ray does NOT rule out impingement.

Second LineUltrasound (Dynamic)

Advantages: Real-time visualization during movement, operator-dependent, low cost

Findings:

  • Bursal thickening: Normal under 2mm; pathological greater than 3mm
  • Subacromial space: Measure distance during abduction (normal 6-14mm)
  • Rotator cuff: Partial tears, full-thickness tears, tendinosis
  • Dynamic assessment: Observe impingement during active elevation

Sensitivity/Specificity: 67-98% for cuff tears (operator-dependent)

Gold StandardMRI Shoulder

Indications: Suspected cuff tear, failed conservative treatment, pre-operative planning

Findings:

  • Subacromial space: Fluid, bursal thickening (bright T2), fibrosis
  • Rotator cuff: Partial/full-thickness tears, tendinosis, muscle atrophy
  • Acromion: Bone marrow edema adjacent to cuff (chronic impingement)
  • AC joint: Cartilage loss, osteophytes, joint effusion
  • Labrum/capsule: Associated instability (secondary impingement)

Sensitivity: 84-100% for full-thickness tears, 44-91% for partial tears

Imaging Decision Algorithm

Under 40 years, acute onset, normal exam strength: X-ray only, trial conservative treatment. Over 40 years, chronic pain, weakness: X-ray + MRI to exclude cuff tear (5-10% annual tear risk in this population). Pre-operative planning: Always MRI to assess cuff integrity - do not offer isolated acromioplasty if significant cuff tear present (may need repair).

Management Algorithm

📊 Management Algorithm
subacromial impingement management algorithm
Click to expand
Management algorithm for subacromial impingementCredit: OrthoVellum

Conservative treatment is first-line for ALL patients and successful in 80-90% of cases. Minimum 3-6 month trial before considering surgery.

Conservative Management

Initial Management Goals

Primary objectives: Reduce pain and inflammation, maintain ROM, prevent stiffness

Treatment Protocol

ImmediateActivity Modification
  • Avoid: Overhead activities, repetitive reaching, heavy lifting
  • Modify: Work ergonomics (desk height, computer position)
  • Sleep: Avoid lying on affected side; use pillow support
  • Duration: 2-4 weeks strict avoidance, then gradual return
Days 0-14Pain Control
  • NSAIDs: Ibuprofen 400mg TDS or naproxen 500mg BD for 10-14 days
  • Ice therapy: 15-20 minutes TDS-QID (acute inflammation)
  • Analgesics: Paracetamol 1g QID for additional pain relief
  • Avoid: Prolonged immobilization (risk of frozen shoulder)
Weeks 1-6Early Physiotherapy
  • Pendulum exercises: Passive ROM to prevent stiffness (days 1-7)
  • Gentle ROM: Pulley exercises, wand exercises (weeks 1-3)
  • Scapular stabilization: Early focus on periscapular muscles
  • Avoid: Painful range, overhead strengthening too early

Frozen Shoulder Risk

Over-aggressive rest (complete immobilization) increases frozen shoulder (adhesive capsulitis) risk by 2-3 fold. Maintain gentle ROM from week 1. If passive ROM is restricted (external rotation less than 50% of normal), suspect early capsulitis and intensify stretching.

Structured Physiotherapy Protocol

Goals: Restore full ROM, strengthen rotator cuff and periscapular muscles, improve shoulder mechanics

ROM Restoration

  • Capsular stretching: Cross-body adduction, posterior capsule stretch
  • Sleeper stretch: IR stretch at 90° abduction (45 sec holds, 3 reps)
  • Doorway pectoral stretch: Address anterior tightness
  • Goal: Full painless ROM by week 8-10

Rotator Cuff Strengthening

  • External rotation: Theraband at side, progress to 90° abduction
  • Internal rotation: Resistance in neutral, progress to functional positions
  • Scaption: Elevation in scapular plane (avoid 60-120° painful arc initially)
  • Progression: Start isometric → light resistance → functional loads

Strengthening Progression

Pain Control PhaseWeeks 6-8: Isometric

Isometric contractions at mid-range positions. Hold 5-10 seconds, 10 reps, 3 sets daily.

Strength BuildingWeeks 8-10: Light Resistance

Theraband exercises (yellow/red bands). Focus on cuff and scapular stabilizers. 15 reps, 3 sets.

Return to ActivityWeeks 10-12: Functional

Sport/work-specific exercises. Progressive loading. Overhead activities if pain-free.

Consistent physiotherapy with progressive loading helps restore function and prevent recurrence.

Corticosteroid Injection Technique and Evidence

Indications:

  • Failed 4-6 weeks of conservative treatment (NSAIDs + physio)
  • Persistent pain limiting rehabilitation
  • Diagnostic confirmation (equivalent to Neer injection test)

Technique (Posterior Approach - Safest):

  • Position: Patient seated, arm relaxed at side
  • Landmark: 2-3cm inferior and 2cm medial to posterolateral acromion
  • Needle: 23G, 3.75cm (1.5 inch) needle
  • Direction: Aim anteriorly and slightly superiorly toward coracoid
  • Injection: 40mg methylprednisolone (or equivalent) + 4-8ml 1% lidocaine
  • Confirmation: Easy injection (no resistance), immediate pain relief with movement

Evidence and Timing

Short-term benefit (4-12 weeks): Steroid injection superior to placebo for pain relief and function. Long-term benefit (greater than 6 months): No difference from placebo. Clinical use: Provides window of pain relief to engage in physiotherapy. Repeat injections: Maximum 3 injections per year (risk of tendon degeneration with more).

Injection Complications

  • Tendon rupture: Rare (less than 1%) but increased with direct tendon injection or greater than 3 injections
  • Infection: Less than 0.1% (strict aseptic technique)
  • Post-injection flare: 10-20% transient pain increase for 24-48 hours
  • Skin/fat atrophy: Superficial injection can cause depigmentation

Conservative Treatment Outcomes

Surgical Management

Surgery Indications - Strict Criteria

Absolute requirements for surgical consideration:

  1. Failed conservative treatment for minimum 3-6 months (optimal 6 months)
  2. Persistent symptoms significantly affecting quality of life
  3. Positive impingement signs on clinical exam
  4. Positive impingement injection test (confirms subacromial pathology)
  5. Structural abnormality on imaging (Type III acromion, spurs) - primary impingement
  6. Excluded secondary causes (instability, cuff weakness without structural lesion)

Contraindications: Secondary impingement, poor rehabilitation compliance, cervical pathology, significant cuff tears (may need repair).

Arthroscopic Acromioplasty and Bursectomy

Procedure: Arthroscopic removal of anterior-inferior acromion (5-7mm) and subacromial bursa.

Surgical Steps

Step 1Setup

Position: Beach chair or lateral decubitus

Portals: Posterior viewing, lateral working, anterior accessory

Diagnostic: Arthroscopy glenohumeral joint first - exclude labral pathology, cuff tears from articular side

Step 2Bursectomy

Entry: Scope enters subacromial space via posterior portal

Bursa removal: Arthroscopic shaver debrides thickened, inflamed bursa

Visualization: Clear subacromial space to identify undersurface of acromion, CA ligament, and rotator cuff

Step 3Acromioplasty

Identify anterior-inferior acromion: The impinging prominence

Resection: Arthroscopic burr removes 5-7mm of bone, creating flat undersurface

Check: Ensure smooth undersurface, no residual spurs

CA ligament: Partial or complete release (controversial - can cause instability)

Step 4Closure and Postop

Hemostasis: Check for bleeding, irrigate

Closure: Simple portal closure

Immobilization: Sling for comfort only (24-48 hours)

Rehabilitation: Early ROM day 1, strengthening week 2-4

Surgical Controversy - CSAW and UKUFF Trials

CSAW Trial (2018, BJSM, n=313): Arthroscopic subacromial decompression vs sham surgery (skin incisions only) vs active monitoring. Result: No difference in pain or function at 1 year. UKUFF Trial (2019, Lancet, n=503): Confirmed no benefit of decompression over investigational shoulder arthroscopy. Conclusion: Questions routine use of acromioplasty. Current practice: Highly selective surgery for patients with clear structural impingement and failed conservative treatment. In exam, acknowledge controversy and evidence.

Open Anterior Acromioplasty (Historical)

Largely replaced by arthroscopic technique. May still be indicated for:

  • Os acromiale: Requires open fixation or excision
  • Revision surgery: Failed arthroscopic decompression
  • Combined procedures: Open cuff repair + acromioplasty

Approach: 4-5cm incision from anterolateral acromion, split anterior deltoid fibers (limit to 5cm from lateral acromion to avoid axillary nerve injury).

Acromioplasty: Osteotome or saw removes anterior-inferior acromion under direct vision.

Disadvantage: Deltoid detachment/splitting, longer recovery, visible scar.

Additional Procedures During Decompression

ProcedureIndicationTechniqueEvidence
Distal clavicle excision (Mumford)AC joint arthritis with inferior osteophytesResect 5-10mm distal clavicle, preserve AC ligamentsGood results if clear AC pathology (80-90% satisfaction)
Rotator cuff debridementPartial-thickness cuff tear (less than 50% depth)Debride frayed edges, smooth surface, no repairControversial - may progress to full tear (20-30%)
Biceps tenotomy/tenodesisBiceps tendinopathy, SLAP tear, groove pathologyRelease LHB from anchor or glenoid, ± tenodesis to humerusGood pain relief, minimal functional loss (Popeye deformity 10-30%)

Complications

Conservative Treatment Complications

ComplicationIncidenceRisk FactorsManagement
Frozen shoulder (adhesive capsulitis)2-5%Prolonged immobilization, diabetic patientsMaintain ROM exercises from onset, aggressive stretching if develops
Tendon degeneration from repeated injectionsRare with under 3 injections/yearGreater than 3 steroid injections annuallyLimit to 3 injections maximum per year, space 3 months apart
Progression to full-thickness cuff tear5-10% annuallyAge over 50, chronic impingement, partial tearRegular review, MRI if worsening weakness

Surgical Complications

ComplicationIncidenceRisk FactorsPrevention/Management
Persistent pain (no improvement)10-15%Secondary impingement, missed cuff tear, inadequate rehabExclude at outset - don't operate on secondary impingement
Frozen shoulder (postoperative stiffness)3-8%Prolonged immobilization, poor compliance with PTEarly ROM from day 1, supervised physiotherapy
Deltoid dysfunction2-5%Axillary nerve injury (open), detachment (open)Limit deltoid split to less than 5cm from acromion, careful dissection
InfectionLess than 1%Diabetes, immunosuppression, steroid injection pre-opAntibiotic prophylaxis, aseptic technique, delay surgery 3 months post-injection
Anterosuperior instability1-3%Excessive CA ligament release, over-resection of acromionPreserve CA arch integrity, limit resection to 5-7mm

Prevention of Failed Surgery

Most common cause: Operating on secondary impingement (rotator cuff weakness, instability). These patients have positive impingement signs but surgery does not address the underlying functional problem. Prevention: Thorough preoperative assessment to distinguish primary (structural) from secondary (functional) impingement. Young athletes with instability signs should NOT have acromioplasty.

Outcomes and Prognosis

Conservative Treatment Outcomes

TreatmentShort-term (3-6 months)Long-term (1-2 years)Notes
Physiotherapy alone60-70% improvement50-60% sustainedBest for Stage I, younger patients
Physio + NSAIDs70-80% improvement60-70% sustainedStandard first-line approach
Physio + steroid injection75-85% improvement65-75% sustainedInjection benefits mainly short-term (under 12 weeks)

Surgical Outcomes

Outcome MeasureTraditional SeriesCSAW Trial (2018)Interpretation
Pain improvement at 1 year75-85% significant improvementNo difference vs sham surgeryQuestions whether improvement is due to surgery or placebo/natural history
Function improvement70-80% return to work/sportSimilar improvement in all 3 groups (surgery, sham, conservative)Suggests natural improvement over time regardless of treatment
Patient satisfaction80-85% satisfiedHigh satisfaction in all groups including shamHighlights powerful placebo effect of surgery

Prognostic Factors

Good Prognosis Indicators

  • Age under 50 years: Better outcomes with both conservative and surgical treatment
  • Short symptom duration (less than 6 months): Responds better to conservative treatment
  • Positive injection test: Predicts good surgical outcome (if structural impingement)
  • Type III acromion with spur: Clear structural abnormality (if primary impingement)
  • Good rehabilitation compliance: Critical for both conservative and surgical success

Poor Prognosis Indicators

  • Secondary impingement: Surgery fails (instability or cuff weakness not addressed)
  • Workers' compensation claims: Associated with worse outcomes (psychological factors)
  • Chronic symptoms (over 2 years): Lower success rates
  • Significant cuff tear: Need cuff repair, not just decompression
  • Smoking, diabetes: Delayed healing, higher complication rates

Critical Evidence Discussion

Pre-CSAW (before 2018): Surgical outcomes quoted as 75-85% good-excellent results based on traditional case series. Post-CSAW (2018 onward): High-quality RCT showed no benefit over sham surgery, challenging these historical results. Current consensus: Surgery may still benefit highly selected patients (failed prolonged conservative treatment, clear structural abnormality, positive injection test), but expectations should be moderated given trial evidence. Quote realistic outcomes: "50-75% chance of significant improvement, but this may occur with continued conservative treatment as well."

Postoperative Care and Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation Timeline

Phase 1Immediate (Days 0-2)
  • Immobilization: Sling for comfort only (not mandatory)
  • Pain control: Ice, analgesics, limit opioids
  • Early ROM: Pendulum exercises day 1, passive forward flexion to tolerance
  • Goal: Prevent stiffness, control pain
Phase 2Weeks 1-2
  • ROM: Active-assisted ROM all planes, wand exercises
  • Sling: Discontinue when comfortable (usually 3-5 days)
  • Avoid: Resisted exercises, heavy lifting
  • Goal: Full passive ROM by week 2
Phase 3Weeks 2-6
  • Strengthening: Begin rotator cuff and scapular exercises (isometric, then theraband)
  • ROM: Full active ROM by week 4-6
  • Functional: Light ADLs, desk work
  • Goal: Restore muscle balance, endurance
Phase 4Weeks 6-12
  • Advanced strengthening: Progressive resistance, sport-specific exercises
  • Return to work: Manual labor by week 8-12 (depending on demands)
  • Return to sport: Overhead athletes week 12-16
  • Goal: Full function, return to activities

Postoperative Milestones

Week 2: Full passive ROM expected. Week 6: Full active ROM expected. Week 12: Return to overhead sports. Failure to achieve these milestones suggests complication (frozen shoulder, re-impingement) - investigate and intensify physiotherapy.

More conservative due to deltoid involvement:

  • Immobilization: Sling 1-2 weeks (protect deltoid)
  • ROM: Passive only for first 3 weeks (avoid deltoid contraction)
  • Strengthening: Delayed to week 4-6
  • Return to sport: Overhead athletes 4-6 months

Overall recovery 2-4 weeks slower than arthroscopic approach.

Evidence Base and Key Trials

CSAW Trial - Subacromial Decompression vs Sham Surgery

1
Beard DJ, Rees JL, Cook JA, et al • BMJ (2018)
Key Findings:
  • Multicenter RCT: 313 patients with subacromial pain, randomized to arthroscopic decompression vs arthroscopy only (sham) vs active monitoring
  • Primary outcome (Oxford Shoulder Score at 6 months): No significant difference between decompression and sham (both improved)
  • Secondary outcomes: No difference in pain, function, or quality of life at 1 year
  • All three groups showed improvement over 6 months (natural history + placebo effect)
Clinical Implication: Challenges routine use of arthroscopic decompression. Suggests significant placebo effect and natural improvement. Surgery should be highly selective for clear structural impingement.
Limitation: Excluded patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears. High crossover rate (11% sham group had decompression). Short follow-up (1 year).

UKUFF Trial - Decompression for Rotator Cuff Disease

1
Paavola M, Malmivaara A, Taimela S, et al • Lancet (2019)
Key Findings:
  • RCT: 503 patients with shoulder impingement, randomized to arthroscopic decompression vs diagnostic arthroscopy vs conservative treatment
  • At 2 years: No difference in pain between decompression and diagnostic arthroscopy
  • Conservative treatment group also showed similar outcomes
  • Conclusion: Decompression no better than placebo surgery or conservative treatment
Clinical Implication: Further evidence against routine acromioplasty. Conservative treatment should be first-line with prolonged trial (6 months minimum).
Limitation: Finnish population, may not generalize. Included patients without structural abnormalities (some likely secondary impingement).

Bigliani Acromion Classification and Impingement Risk

3
Bigliani LU, Morrison DS, April EW • J Shoulder Elbow Surg (1997)
Key Findings:
  • Cadaveric study: 140 shoulders examined for acromion morphology and rotator cuff pathology
  • Type I (flat) 17% prevalence, 13% had cuff tears
  • Type II (curved) 43% prevalence, 24% had cuff tears
  • Type III (hooked) 40% prevalence, 70% had cuff tears
  • Statistically significant association between Type III and cuff pathology
Clinical Implication: Type III acromion is a significant risk factor for rotator cuff disease. Useful for patient counseling and surgical decision-making.
Limitation: Cadaveric study (cannot prove causation). Debate whether Type III is cause or effect of impingement.

Corticosteroid Injection for Subacromial Impingement - Cochrane Review

1
Buchbinder R, Green S, Youd JM • Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2003)
Key Findings:
  • Meta-analysis of 26 RCTs evaluating subacromial corticosteroid injection
  • Short-term benefit (up to 9 weeks): Small improvement in pain and function vs placebo
  • Long-term benefit (beyond 6 months): No difference from placebo
  • Similar efficacy to NSAIDs at short-term; injection may work faster
  • No benefit of repeated injections over single injection
Clinical Implication: Steroid injection provides short-term pain relief (weeks), allowing engagement in physiotherapy. Not a definitive treatment. Maximum 3 injections per year.
Limitation: Heterogeneity in injection technique, dose, and outcome measures across studies.

Conservative vs Surgical Treatment for Subacromial Impingement - Systematic Review

2
Ketola S, Lehtinen J, Arnala I, et al • J Bone Joint Surg Am (2009)
Key Findings:
  • Systematic review of 5 RCTs comparing surgery vs conservative treatment
  • Short-term (3-6 months): Surgery showed faster improvement
  • Long-term (1-2 years): No significant difference in outcomes
  • 80-90% success rate with conservative treatment at 1 year
  • Surgery benefits highly selected patients with persistent symptoms and structural abnormalities
Clinical Implication: Conservative treatment should be first-line for minimum 6 months. Surgery reserved for failed conservative treatment in carefully selected patients.
Limitation: Pre-dates CSAW/UKUFF trials. Included patients without sham surgery controls.

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOStandard

Scenario 1: Classic Presentation - Initial Assessment (2-3 min)

EXAMINER

"A 52-year-old painter presents with 6 months of progressive right shoulder pain. He has difficulty working overhead and has night pain. Examination shows positive Neer and Hawkins-Kennedy tests, painful arc 70-110°, full strength on rotator cuff testing. X-ray shows a Type III acromion with small anterior-inferior spur. How would you assess and manage this patient?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a classic presentation of subacromial impingement syndrome with structural impingement factors. I would take a systematic approach: First, complete the history - confirm mechanism (repetitive overhead work), exclude red flags (night pain pattern suggests Stage II-III disease but need to exclude tumor/infection), assess impact on function and work. Second, examination - I've noted positive impingement signs and preserved strength, which is reassuring. I would perform a subacromial injection test with 10ml lidocaine to confirm diagnosis and predict treatment response. Third, imaging - the X-ray shows Type III acromion (structural risk factor) and spur formation, consistent with Stage III disease. I would consider MRI to exclude rotator cuff tear given his age (over 50) and chronic symptoms. My initial management would be conservative: NSAIDs for 2 weeks, subacromial corticosteroid injection for pain relief, and structured physiotherapy focusing on rotator cuff strengthening and scapular stabilization. I would counsel that 80-90% respond to conservative treatment over 3-6 months. If symptoms persist after 6 months of optimal conservative treatment and he has a positive injection test, I would consider arthroscopic subacromial decompression, acknowledging recent evidence (CSAW trial) showing limited benefit over sham surgery.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Systematic approach: history, examination, imaging, conservative treatment first
Distinguish primary (structural - Type III acromion) vs secondary impingement
Subacromial injection test confirms diagnosis and predicts treatment response
Conservative treatment minimum 3-6 months before considering surgery
Acknowledge controversy around surgical outcomes (CSAW trial)
COMMON TRAPS
✗Jumping to surgery without adequate conservative trial - need 3-6 months minimum
✗Not performing injection test - misses diagnostic confirmation and treatment predictor
✗Missing rotator cuff tear - MRI indicated in over 50s with chronic symptoms
✗Ignoring recent evidence - must acknowledge CSAW/UKUFF trials showing limited surgical benefit
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What if MRI shows a small partial-thickness rotator cuff tear (less than 50%)?"
"The patient has failed 6 months of physiotherapy. What are your surgical options?"
"How do you counsel the patient about surgical outcomes given the CSAW trial?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Scenario 2: Young Athlete - Secondary Impingement (3-4 min)

EXAMINER

"A 28-year-old competitive swimmer presents with 4 months of shoulder pain during training. She has positive impingement signs. You also note positive apprehension and relocation tests. MRI shows subacromial bursal fluid but no cuff tear, normal labrum. How would you approach this case?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is likely secondary impingement related to subtle glenohumeral instability in a young overhead athlete. The key here is recognizing that positive impingement signs can be secondary to instability - the weak or unstable shoulder allows abnormal kinematics leading to impingement. My approach: First, detailed history focusing on instability symptoms - does she have clicking, dead arm sensation, sense of looseness? Swimming stroke mechanics (freestyle, butterfly are high-risk). Second, thorough instability examination - I note positive apprehension/relocation, I would also perform load-and-shift test to assess degree of laxity, sulcus sign for inferior instability. Third, imaging review - the MRI shows no structural impingement factors (no hooked acromion mentioned), no cuff tear, which supports secondary rather than primary impingement. Treatment is critical here: This patient does NOT need acromioplasty. Management is conservative with focus on instability: rotator cuff strengthening (especially external rotators), scapular stabilization exercises, technique modification in swimming (body roll, catch position). I would also consider sport-specific coaching input. Surgical acromioplasty would fail in this case because we're not addressing the underlying instability. If conservative treatment fails and instability is significant, I would consider capsular plication or labral repair if pathology identified, not subacromial decompression.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Recognize secondary impingement - young athlete with instability signs
Impingement tests can be positive in instability - don't miss the underlying cause
Treatment addresses instability, not structural impingement
Acromioplasty would fail - most common cause of failed surgery is operating on secondary impingement
Conservative treatment: cuff strengthening, scapular stabilization, technique modification
COMMON TRAPS
✗Offering acromioplasty - wrong operation for secondary impingement, high failure rate
✗Not examining for instability - missing the underlying diagnosis
✗Assuming all positive impingement tests need decompression
✗Not considering sport-specific factors (swimming mechanics)
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What if the patient has multidirectional instability on examination?"
"She fails 6 months of conservative treatment. What next?"
"How do you differentiate primary from secondary impingement clinically?"
VIVA SCENARIOCritical

Scenario 3: Failed Conservative Treatment - Surgical Decision (2-3 min)

EXAMINER

"A 58-year-old manual laborer has failed 9 months of conservative treatment for subacromial impingement. He's had physiotherapy, 2 steroid injections with temporary relief only. X-ray shows Type III acromion with prominent spur. MRI shows bursal thickening, no rotator cuff tear. He's requesting surgery. How do you counsel him about surgical options and evidence?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This patient has failed optimal conservative treatment and has structural impingement factors, making him a potential surgical candidate. However, I need to counsel him carefully about recent evidence and realistic expectations. First, I would confirm he's had adequate conservative treatment - 9 months is sufficient, physiotherapy was structured (not just 'do some exercises'), injections provided temporary relief (suggests subacromial pathology). Second, I would perform a subacromial injection test if not done recently - complete pain relief predicts good surgical outcome. Third, surgical option is arthroscopic subacromial decompression - acromioplasty to remove anterior-inferior acromion and spur, bursectomy. I would counsel him about the evidence: Recent high-quality trials (CSAW and UKUFF) showed arthroscopic decompression was no better than sham surgery or conservative treatment at 1-2 years. However, these studies included patients with mixed pathology. In carefully selected patients like him - failed conservative treatment, clear structural abnormality (Type III acromion, spur), positive injection test - outcomes may be better than trial averages. I would quote realistic success rates: 75-85% good-excellent results, but 10-15% see no improvement or get worse. Complications include infection (less than 1%), stiffness (3-8%), persistent pain (10-15%). Recovery is 3-6 months for full return to manual work. I would ensure he has realistic expectations and is motivated for postoperative rehabilitation, which is critical to success.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Confirm adequate conservative trial - duration, quality of physiotherapy, injection response
Injection test predicts surgical outcome - complete pain relief = good prognosis
Acknowledge CSAW/UKUFF trials - evidence against routine surgery
Balance trial evidence with individual patient factors - structural abnormality, failed conservative treatment
Realistic outcome counseling - 75-85% success, but 10-15% no improvement
Postoperative rehabilitation is critical - early ROM, progressive strengthening
COMMON TRAPS
✗Not counseling about recent negative trials - examiners expect you to know CSAW/UKUFF
✗Overpromising surgical success - realistic expectations critical
✗Not confirming injection test - best predictor of surgical outcome
✗Rushing to surgery without confirming optimal conservative treatment quality
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"The patient asks about your personal experience with surgery outcomes - how do you respond?"
"What if he has diabetes and smokes - does this change your recommendation?"
"He's had 3 steroid injections already - is this a concern?"

MCQ Practice Points

Anatomy Question

Q: The subacromial space is bounded superiorly by which structure? A: Coracoacromial arch (anterior acromion, coracoid process, and coracoacromial ligament). The inferior boundary is the superior surface of the rotator cuff (supraspinatus primarily). Normal subacromial space height is 7-14mm.

Classification Question

Q: According to Bigliani classification, which acromion type has the highest association with rotator cuff tears? A: Type III (hooked acromion) - 70% association with rotator cuff tears vs 24% for Type II (curved) and 13% for Type I (flat). Type III represents 40% of the population.

Diagnostic Test Question

Q: What is the most specific test for diagnosing subacromial impingement syndrome? A: Neer impingement injection test - 10ml lidocaine injected into subacromial space. Complete pain relief (greater than 50% reduction) on repeat provocative tests confirms subacromial pathology. Sensitivity 75-95%, specificity 40-70%. Also predicts response to surgical decompression.

Treatment Evidence Question

Q: The CSAW trial (2018) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression to what control? A: Sham surgery (arthroscopic portal incisions without decompression) and active monitoring. Result: No significant difference in outcomes at 6-12 months. This Level 1 evidence challenged routine use of acromioplasty and emphasized conservative treatment.

Conservative Management Question

Q: What is the minimum duration of conservative treatment recommended before considering surgery for subacromial impingement? A: 3-6 months of structured conservative treatment (physiotherapy, NSAIDs, ± steroid injection). 6 months is optimal. 80-90% of patients respond to conservative treatment within this timeframe. Premature surgery (less than 3 months) is a common cause of poor outcomes.

Surgical Complication Question

Q: What is the most common cause of failed arthroscopic subacromial decompression? A: Operating on secondary impingement (functional impingement due to rotator cuff weakness or instability). These patients have positive impingement signs but no structural narrowing - surgery does not address the underlying problem. Always distinguish primary (structural) from secondary (functional) impingement before recommending surgery.

Australian Context and Medicolegal Considerations

Australian Guidelines

  • RACS Guidelines: Conservative management for minimum 3 months before surgical referral recommended
  • PBS: NSAIDs (ibuprofen, naproxen) on PBS for musculoskeletal pain
  • Wait times: Public system 6-12 months for non-urgent shoulder surgery - often symptoms improve during wait

Medicolegal Considerations

  • Informed consent: MUST discuss CSAW/UKUFF trial findings - arthroscopic decompression no better than sham
  • Documentation: Record conservative treatment timeline, injection response, patient expectations
  • Failure to improve: Not a complication if adequately counseled (10-15% expected)
  • Alternative options: Document discussion of continued conservative management vs surgery

Consent Documentation Requirements

Specific points to document in consent discussion:

  • Success rate: 75-85% good-excellent results, but 10-15% no improvement (based on older data; CSAW suggests lower benefit)
  • Recent evidence: CSAW trial showed no benefit over sham surgery - explain why still offering surgery (structural factors, failed conservative treatment, individual patient selection)
  • Complications: Infection (less than 1%), stiffness (3-8%), persistent pain (10-15%), nerve injury (rare, less than 1%)
  • Recovery: 3-6 months to full function, early physiotherapy critical
  • Alternative: Continued conservative treatment is a valid option even after failed initial trial

Medicolegal claims often arise from failure to discuss realistic expectations and recent evidence.

SUBACROMIAL IMPINGEMENT SYNDROME

High-Yield Exam Summary

Key Anatomy

  • •Subacromial space = 7-14mm height (under 7mm = impingement risk)
  • •Boundaries: Superior = coracoacromial arch, Inferior = rotator cuff (supraspinatus)
  • •Bigliani Type III (hooked) acromion = 70% cuff tear association (vs 13% Type I flat)
  • •Structures at risk: Supraspinatus tendon, long head biceps, subacromial bursa

Classification

  • •Neer Stage I (under 25) = edema/hemorrhage = reversible = conservative only
  • •Neer Stage II (25-40) = fibrosis/tendinitis = conservative first, surgery if failed 6 months
  • •Neer Stage III (over 40) = spurs/tears = often surgical
  • •Primary (structural: acromion, spurs, AC joint) vs Secondary (functional: cuff weakness, instability)

Clinical Tests

  • •Neer test (passive forward flexion) = 79-90% sensitive
  • •Hawkins-Kennedy (IR at 90° flexion) = 74-92% sensitive
  • •Combined Neer + Hawkins-Kennedy = greater than 90% sensitivity
  • •Neer injection test (10ml lidocaine subacromial) = 75-95% sensitive, 40-70% specific = BEST diagnostic test

Treatment Algorithm

  • •ALL patients: Conservative first - NSAIDs, physio (cuff/scapular strengthening), activity modification
  • •Failed 4-6 weeks: Add subacromial steroid injection (short-term benefit only, max 3/year)
  • •Failed 3-6 months (optimal 6): Consider surgery IF positive injection test + structural abnormality
  • •Surgery: Arthroscopic decompression (acromioplasty + bursectomy) - 75-85% success but CSAW trial showed no benefit over sham

Surgical Pearls

  • •Resect 5-7mm anterior-inferior acromion (excessive = instability risk)
  • •Complete bursectomy for visualization
  • •Assess cuff from articular side first (exclude tears needing repair)
  • •Early ROM day 1 postop (prevent stiffness), strengthen from week 2
Quick Stats
Reading Time131 min
Related Topics

AC Joint Injuries in Athletes

Achilles Tendinopathy

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries

Anterior Shoulder Instability