Table 3.
Secondary comparison arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) versus exercise therapy (ET): outcomes of the trial at 5 years follow-up
| ASD (n=53) |
ET (n=62) |
Between-group difference, (ASD versus ET) |
P value | |
| Primary outcomes | ||||
| Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, at rest | 6.3 (1.5 to 11.0) | 5.3 (0.8 to 9.8) | 1.0 (−5.6 to 7.6) | 0.77 |
| VAS score, on arm activity | 12.6 (6.1 to 19.2) | 16.5 (10.3 to 22.6) | −3.9 (−12.8 to 5.1) | 0.40 |
| Secondary outcomes | ||||
| Constant-Murley score | 83.7 (79.2 to 88.1) | 79.8 (75.6 to 84.1) | 3.9 (−2.3 to 10.0) | 0.22 |
| Simple shoulder test score | 10.6 (10.0 to 11.3) | 10.7 (10.1 to 11.3) | 0.0 (−0.9 to 0.8) | 0.94 |
| 15D score | 0.90 (0.89 to 0.91) | 0.91 (0.90 to 0.93) | 0.01 (−0.03 to 0.01) | 0.32 |
| SF-36 score | ||||
| Physical health | 84.3 (81.2 to 87.3) | 87.5 (84.7 to 90.4) | –3.3 (−7.4 to 0.9) | 0.13 |
| Mental health | 79.2 (75.9 to 82.4) | 81.9 (78.8 to 84.9) | −2.7 (−7.2 to 1.8) | 0.23 |
| Proportion of patients able to return to previous leisure activities* | 0.91 (0.83 to 0.98) | 0.80 (0.70 to 0.90) | 0.11 (−0.02 to 0.23) | 0.067 |
| Proportion of responders† | 0.98 (0.95 to 1.0) | 0.94 (0.88 to 1.0) | 0.04 (−0.03 to 0.11) | 0.32 |
| Patients’ satisfaction with treatment‡ | 89.7 (84.4 to 95.0) | 86.8 (81.8 to 91.7) | 3.0 (−4.3 to 10.2) | 0.42 |
| No (%) complications and adverse effects§ | 3 (5) | 3 (4) | – | – |
Values are means with 95% CIs unless otherwise indicated. A lower score indicates the desired (better) treatment outcome in pain VAS score and complications, while a higher score indicates the same in all other outcomes. Between-group differences may not exactly equal the difference in changes in score between the ASD and diagnostic arthroscopy groups because of the adjustment for baseline imbalance in the mixed-effects model.
*Patients ability to return to previous leisure activities was assessed with the following question: ‘Have you been able to return to your previous leisure activities?’ (‘yes’ or ‘no’).
†Patients’ satisfaction with the treatment outcome was elicited with a question: ‘How satisfied are you with the outcome of your treatment?’ on a 5-item scale. Patients who reported very satisfied or satisfied were categorised as ‘Responders’.
‡Patients’ global assessment of satisfaction to the treatment was elicited with this question: ‘Are you satisfied with the treatment you have received?’ We used a VAS ranging from 0 (completely disappointed) to 100 (very satisfied).
§Complications directly related to the interventions were registered.