Early Postoperative Outcomes Between Arthroscopic and Mini-open Repair for Rotator Cuff Tears

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare early postoperative outcomes between arthroscopic and mini-open repair for rotator cuff tears smaller than 3 cm to determine whether arthroscopic repair causes less postoperative pain and allows for faster recovery of range of motion. Sixty patients scheduled for rotator cuff repair were randomized to either an arthroscopic repair group (30 patients) or a mini-open repair group (30 patients). Pain level, range of motion, shoulder stiffness, and complications were compared between the 2 groups from immediately postoperatively to 6 months postoperatively. Although no statistically significant difference was found in mean visual analog scale pain scores between the 2 groups during the 6 months postoperatively, mean visual analog scale pain score was significantly lower in the arthroscopic repair group compared with the mini-open repair group at postoperative days 1 and 2 (P=.02 and P=.04, respectively). No significant difference existed in postoperative range of motion, duration of rehabilitation, shoulder stiffness, or complications between the 2 groups; however, the use of additional analgesics in the arthroscopic repair group was significantly lower than in the mini-open repair group (P=.03). Arthroscopic and mini-open repair had equivalent clinical outcomes in the early postoperative period. The hypothesis that arthroscopic repair would cause less postoperative pain and allow faster recovery of range of motion in the early postoperative period compared with mini-open repair was not supported.

All-Arthroscopic versus Mini-Open Repair of Small to Large Sized Rotator Cuff Tears: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

“…7 studies [8]–[10], [12], [14], [17], [18] using different score systems were involved when comparing the function score between two groups. There was no difference in the function outcome scores between the two groups.…”

“…Based on the available data, only 4 studies [8]–[10], [14] provided the information about postoperative range of motion (Forward flextion, External rotation) with 260 patients. Among these 4 studies, only one examined the degree of abduction as mean and standard deviation.…”

Comparison of clinical outcomes in all-arthroscopic versus mini-open repair of rotator cuff tears

“…With less pain during shoulder activity, patients were more willing to do rehabilitation exercises that help them recover joint functions. Some researchers [2,20,30] demonstrated that patients who opted for the AA procedure obtained faster rehabilitation in terms of function score, VAS pain, and range of motion compared with patients in the MO group. Our study also observed that the AA group had better VAS score on the first postoperative day and 1 month later, as well as range of FF after 2 weeks postoperatively, while some studies [7,8,14,15] did not identify significant difference on rehabilitation or pain between the 2 groups (Table 4).…”

“…Our experience showed that the MO procedure takes approximately 15 minutes less than the AA procedure. Similarly, van der Zwaal et al [20] and Cho et al [30] reported that all-arthroscopy surgeries need more time than MO ones on average, but neither of these studies reported any significant difference about surgery time.…”

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair [the UK Rotator Cuff Surgery (UKUFF) randomised trial]

“…Of these six trials, one RCT 56 is ongoing, with completed recruitment but final results awaiting publication. Two other trials 57,58 were identified comparing two different types of surgical intervention; however, these were excluded as the patients were not randomised.…”