Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis

Abstract

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.