Acromioplasty is controversial. Technically, it consists in bone resection, but there is no gold-standard technique and resection is often not quantified. The aims of the present study were 1/to assess the methodological quality of studies of acromioplasty; 2/to identify reports in which acromioplasty was quantified; and 3/to assess any correlation between clinical results and resection quantity.

A systematic literature review was performed on PRISMA criteria in the PubMed, Springer and Ovid databases, including all articles in French or English referring to acromioplasty. Articles were analyzed by 2 surgeons and those with complete procedural description were selected. 1/Methodology was assessed on 3 grades according to aim of acromioplasty, intraoperative assessment of resection, and postoperative radiologic assessment. 2/Results were extracted from articles with robust methodology and quantitative data. 3/Correlations were assessed between clinical results and resection quantity.

Out of the 250 articles retrieved, 94 were selected. 1/44 of these (47%) specified the aim of the acromioplasty, 53 (56%) included an intraoperative clinical assessment criterion, and 13 (14%) included postoperative radiographic assessment. Methodologic quality was insufficient in 33 articles (35%), poor in 23 (24%) and robust in 38 (40%). 2/Seven articles (7.5%) included quantitative results. 3/Three articles assessed correlation between clinical results and resection quantity, but only 1 used reproducible radiographic assessment by critical shoulder angle (CSA); this study reported a significant positive correlation between clinical results and decreased CSA.

Methodology in studies of acromioplasty was largely insufficient and resection was usually not quantified. Current data to assess the usefulness of the procedure are sparse. We advocate including a Checklist for Acromioplasty Studies in the methodology of future studies. There is at present no gold-standard for assessing and quantifying acromial resection. CSA seems contributive, but other methods might be worth developing.

IV; systematic review of level 1–4 studies.