Still in pain after the calcium was drawn out with an injection? Calcific tendinitis and arthroscopic calcium removal
“I woke up from sleep with my shoulder feeling like it was being torn off.” This is what patients with calcific tendinitis often say. Calcium builds up inside the shoulder tendon, and when the body dissolves it, inflammation flares and sudden severe pain follows.
Let me say first and clearly: most calcific tendinitis gets better without surgery. This article is not saying that “calcium must always be removed by surgery.” If anything, the opposite. What I want to say is that for a few patients who do not get better after treatment in sequence, arthroscopic surgery has a clear role.
Treatment has an order
| Step | Treatment | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | Medication, injection, exercise | Anti-inflammatory painkillers, steroid injection at the inflamed site, and shoulder exercises. Many people get better here. |
| Step 2 | Ultrasound-guided calcium aspiration | Under ultrasound guidance, a needle is used to break up and wash out the calcium. It is one of the most effective treatments that need no surgery. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy is also an option. |
| Step 3 | Arthroscopic calcium removal | When the treatments above do not work or complications arise, the calcium is removed under direct arthroscopic vision. |
Ultrasound-guided aspiration is a well-supported treatment. A systematic review pooling 908 patients found that most improved in pain and function, and in a randomized study comparing it with steroid injection alone, the group that also had aspiration did better at one year.
But when the same study was followed to five years, shoulder function in the two groups ended up similar. That means calcific tendinitis tends to get better with time on its own. So there is no reason to rush to surgery from the first treatment.
So when is arthroscopic surgery needed?
The problem is when treatment in sequence still does not work.
- Pain continues even after one or two aspirations
- The calcium is hard or widespread and a needle cannot remove enough of it
- The calcium has burrowed into the bone beneath the tendon. Aspiration results have been reported to be clearly worse in this case.
- Other problems are present, such as weakness or a stiff shoulder
- Infection is suspected after the procedure
In such cases, arthroscopic calcium removal has shown good results in several studies. As Korean examples, 30 of 35 patients who had arthroscopic surgery for chronic calcific tendinitis had less pain within six months, and in another Korean study the pain score fell from an average of 6.7 to 1.0 out of 10. Arthroscopy lets us see the condition of the tendon directly, and any tendon defect left after removing the calcium can be repaired on the spot. Being able to wash out the joint thoroughly is another advantage.
There are drawbacks too. Surgery and anesthesia are needed, and it usually takes three to six months for the pain to settle completely and function to return. Temporary stiffness after surgery is reported in about 10–20%, so rehab is important.
In short, there is as yet no evidence that arthroscopic surgery is a better treatment than aspiration “from the start.” But for patients who do not get better with aspiration, arthroscopic surgery is an evidence-based next step.
A real case: pain that continued after two aspirations
He is a man in his mid-40s. He was diagnosed with calcific tendinitis of the left shoulder and had calcium aspiration at a local clinic, but the pain continued, and after hearing that infection was suspected he had a second aspiration. The pain still did not settle, and he came to the emergency room with a swollen shoulder and weakness lifting the arm. The shoulder was also stiff and hard to move.
Two aspirations had already failed, and infection was even a possibility. Rather than repeat the same procedure a third time, I judged that it was better to look directly with the arthroscope, remove the calcium and wash out the joint thoroughly.
As the pictures show, the tissue around the tendon was red and congested from inflammation, and calcium remained inside the tendon. I could remove it while seeing even the parts a needle can hardly reach.
In closing
- Calcific tendinitis mostly gets better without surgery. Medication, injections and ultrasound-guided aspiration come first.
- If you have aspiration and still do not get better, if the calcium has burrowed into the bone, or if there are other problems such as infection or weakness, arthroscopic calcium removal is a good next step.
- Recovery after surgery takes several months, so keeping up with rehab steadily is important.
This article is general medical information. Treatment can differ depending on the size and location of the calcium, how long the symptoms have lasted and other conditions, so please confirm with an examination.
References
- Gatt DL, Charalambous CP. Ultrasound-guided barbotage for calcific tendonitis of the shoulder: a systematic review including 908 patients. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(9):1166–1172.
- de Witte PB, Selten JW, Navas A, et al. Calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff: a randomized controlled trial of ultrasound-guided needling and lavage versus subacromial corticosteroids. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(7):1665–1673.
- de Witte PB, Kolk A, Overes F, Nelissen RGHH, Reijnierse M. Rotator cuff calcific tendinitis: ultrasound-guided needling and lavage versus subacromial corticosteroids: five-year outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(14):3305–3314.
- Klontzas ME, Vassalou EE, Karantanas AH. Calcific tendinopathy of the shoulder with intraosseous extension: outcomes of ultrasound-guided percutaneous irrigation. Skeletal Radiol. 2017;46(2):201–208.
- Yoo JC, Park WH, Koh KH, Kim SM. Arthroscopic treatment of chronic calcific tendinitis with complete removal and rotator cuff tendon repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18(12):1694–1699.
- Cho CH, Bae KC, Kim BS, Kim HJ, Kim DH. Recovery pattern after arthroscopic treatment for calcific tendinitis of the shoulder. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020;106(4):687–691.