Early outcome of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a matched comparison with mini-open rotator cuff repair.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the early functional outcome of mini-open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 128 patients with chronic small- and medium-sized rotator cuff tears who underwent mini-open rotator cuff repair (MRCR) (n=63) or arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) (n = 65). Data were collected prospectively at baseline 1 to 2 weeks before surgery and at 3 and 6 months after surgery. Patients were identified from a prospectively created database based on the dimensions of the size of the tear as determined intraoperatively. Outcome was assessed via physical examination, visual analog scales (VASs), the Simple Shoulder Test, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey. Changes between baseline and follow-up were compared. RESULTS: All demographic variables and preoperative baseline parameters of the 2 groups were equivalent. At 3 and 6 months, both MRCR and ARCR showed statistically significant improvement in all patient-derived outcome parameters (P < or = .0001) except for three SF-36 variables. The improvements in the SF-36 bodily pain score at 3 months postoperatively (P = .041) and the VAS pain score at 6 months postoperatively (P = .03) were better for ARCR. All other improvements in patient-derived parameters were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: In our retrospective study we found that the early functional outcomes of MRCR and ARCR of small- and medium-sized rotator cuff tears are nearly equivalent. In light of the purported advantages of ARCR that motivate its popularity, this is an unexpected finding. However, an equally important result of this study was the finding that ARCR was associated with statistically significant improvement in the 3-month SF-36 bodily pain score and 6-month VAS pain score (P = .041 and .03, respectively). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective therapeutic comparative study.
