Xiaoxi Ji1, Chun Bi1, Fang Wang1, Qiugen Wang2. 1. Orthopaedic Traumatology Department, Shanghai First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 2. Orthopaedic Traumatology Department, Shanghai First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: wangqiugen@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repairs based on recently published Level I randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases to identify RCTs that compared arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repairs from 1980 to October 2013. The clinical outcome scores, including the University of California, Los Angeles score and the Constant-Murley score, were converted to a common 100-point outcome score for further analysis. The results of the pooled studies were analyzed in terms of surgery time, weighted 100-point score, pain on a visual analog scale (VAS), and range of motion. Study quality was assessed and relevant data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: Five RCTs, including 166 patients in the arthroscopic repair group and 163 patients in the mini-open repair group, were included in this meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in surgery time (P = .11), weighted 100-point score (P = .65), VAS pain score (P = .87), or range of motion (P = .29 for forward flexion and P = .82 for external rotation). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of current literature, no differences in surgery time, functional outcome score, VAS pain score, and range of motion were found at the end of follow-up between the arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repair techniques. In addition, there was no significant difference in VAS pain score in the early phase between the 2 repairs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, meta-analysis of Level I studies.
PURPOSE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repairs based on recently published Level I randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases to identify RCTs that compared arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repairs from 1980 to October 2013. The clinical outcome scores, including the University of California, Los Angeles score and the Constant-Murley score, were converted to a common 100-point outcome score for further analysis. The results of the pooled studies were analyzed in terms of surgery time, weighted 100-point score, pain on a visual analog scale (VAS), and range of motion. Study quality was assessed and relevant data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: Five RCTs, including 166 patients in the arthroscopic repair group and 163 patients in the mini-open repair group, were included in this meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in surgery time (P = .11), weighted 100-point score (P = .65), VAS pain score (P = .87), or range of motion (P = .29 for forward flexion and P = .82 for external rotation). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of current literature, no differences in surgery time, functional outcome score, VAS pain score, and range of motion were found at the end of follow-up between the arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repair techniques. In addition, there was no significant difference in VAS pain score in the early phase between the 2 repairs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, meta-analysis of Level I studies.
Authors: Desmond John Bokor; David Sonnabend; Luke Deady; Ben Cass; Allan Young; Craig Van Kampen; Steven Arnoczky Journal: Muscles Ligaments Tendons J Date: 2015-10-20
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: Kyle R Duchman; Dayne T Mickelson; Barrett A Little; Thomas W Hash; Devin B Lemmex; Alison P Toth; Grant E Garrigues Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Dfp van Deurzen; Vab Scholtes; W J Willems; H H Geerdink; H J van der Woude; Vpm van der Hulst; Mpj van den Bekerom Journal: Shoulder Elbow Date: 2018-05-12