BACKGROUND: Controversy remains regarding the results of all arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs compared with the mini-open approach. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive literature search and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing the results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs and mini-open rotator cuff repairs. HYPOTHESIS: There is no difference between the clinical results obtained from all arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs compared with mini-open repairs. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: A computerized search of articles published between 1966 and July 2006 was performed using MEDLINE and PubMed. Additionally, a search of abstracts from 4 major annual meetings each held between 2000 and 2005 was performed to identify Level I to III studies comparing the results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and mini-open repair. Studies that included follow-up of an average of over 2 years and a minimum of 1 year and included the use of 1 of 4 validated functional outcome scores used to study shoulder injuries were included in the present meta-analysis. All outcome scores were converted to a 100-point scale to allow for outcome comparison. RESULTS: Five studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified. There was no difference in functional outcome scores or complications between the arthroscopic and mini-open repair groups. CONCLUSION: Based on current literature, there was no difference in outcomes between the arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repair techniques.
BACKGROUND: Controversy remains regarding the results of all arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs compared with the mini-open approach. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive literature search and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing the results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs and mini-open rotator cuff repairs. HYPOTHESIS: There is no difference between the clinical results obtained from all arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs compared with mini-open repairs. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: A computerized search of articles published between 1966 and July 2006 was performed using MEDLINE and PubMed. Additionally, a search of abstracts from 4 major annual meetings each held between 2000 and 2005 was performed to identify Level I to III studies comparing the results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and mini-open repair. Studies that included follow-up of an average of over 2 years and a minimum of 1 year and included the use of 1 of 4 validated functional outcome scores used to study shoulder injuries were included in the present meta-analysis. All outcome scores were converted to a 100-point scale to allow for outcome comparison. RESULTS: Five studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified. There was no difference in functional outcome scores or complications between the arthroscopic and mini-open repair groups. CONCLUSION: Based on current literature, there was no difference in outcomes between the arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repair techniques.
Authors: Daniel C Austin; Michael T Torchia; Jonathan D Lurie; David S Jevsevar; John-Erik Bell Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Alexis Chiang Colvin; Natalia Egorova; Alicia K Harrison; Alan Moskowitz; Evan L Flatow Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Pietro Randelli; Davide Cucchi; Vincenza Ragone; Laura de Girolamo; Paolo Cabitza; Mario Randelli Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Philip Kasten; Christoph Keil; Thomas Grieser; Patric Raiss; Nikolaus Streich; Markus Loew Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2011-04-30 Impact factor: 3.075