Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Mar 7:6:22857.
doi: 10.1038/srep22857.

Systematic Review of All-Arthroscopic Versus Mini-Open Repair of Rotator Cuff Tears: A Meta-Analysis

Rongzhong Huang  1 , Sanrong Wang  1 , Yule Wang  1 , Xiaoxia Qin  1 , Yang Sun  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Systematic Review of All-Arthroscopic Versus Mini-Open Repair of Rotator Cuff Tears: A Meta-Analysis

Rongzhong Huang et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare outcomes in patients with rotator cuff tears undergoing all-arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair. A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes of all-arthroscopic repair versus mini-open repair in patients with rotator cuff repair was conducted. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were screened and included from systematic literature search for electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL library was conducted from 1969 and 2015. A total of 18 comparative studies including 4 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Pooled results indicate that there was no difference in the functional outcomes, range of motion, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and short-form 36 (SF-36) subscales. However, Constant-Murley functional score was found to be significantly better in patients with mini-open repair. However, the results of the review should be interpreted with caution due to small size and small number of studies contributing to analysis in some of the outcomes. All-arthroscopic and mini-open repair surgical techniques for the management of rotator cuff repair are associated with similar outcomes and can be used interchangeably based on the patient and rotator tear characteristics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Trial flow of included studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI for UCLA (University of California Los Angeles) after surgery.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI for ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons) after surgery.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for constant score after surgery.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) score after surgery.
Figure 6
Figure 6. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for SST (Simple Shoulder Test) after surgery.
Figure 7
Figure 7. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for forward flextion after surgery.
Figure 8
Figure 8. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for forward flextion after surgery (sensitivity analysis).
Figure 9
Figure 9. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for external rotation after surgery.
Figure 10
Figure 10. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for external rotation after surgery (sensitivity analysis).
Figure 11
Figure 11. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for abduction after surgery.
Figure 12
Figure 12. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for internal rotation after surgery.
Figure 13
Figure 13. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for VAS (Visual Analog Scale) (pain) after surgery.
Figure 14
Figure 14. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for VAS (Visual Analog Scale) (function) after surgery.
Figure 15
Figure 15. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for VAS (Visual Analog Scale) (function) after surgery (sensitivity analysis).
Figure 16
Figure 16. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for SF-36 (Short-Form 36) (bodily pain) after surgery.
Figure 17
Figure 17. Forest plot showing the SMD (standardized mean difference) and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for SF-36 (Short-Form 36) (role physical) after surgery.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Beaudreuil J., Dhénain M., Coudane H. & Mlika-Cabanne N. Clinical practice guidelines for the surgical management of rotator cuff tears in adults. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research 96, 175–179 (2010). - PubMed
    1. Huisstede B. M., Koes B. W., Gebremariam L., Keijsers E. & Verhaar J. A. Current evidence for effectiveness of interventions to treat rotator cuff tears. Manual therapy 16, 217–230 (2011). - PubMed
    1. Pandey V. & Willems W. J. Rotator cuff tear: A detailed update. Asia-Pacific Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation and Technology 2, 1–14 (2015). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kang L., Henn R. F., Tashjian R. Z. & Green A. Early outcome of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a matched comparison with mini-open rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery 23, 573–582. e572 (2007). - PubMed
    1. Kasten P. et al.. Prospective randomised comparison of arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair of the supraspinatus tendon. International orthopaedics 35, 1663–1670 (2011). - PMC - PubMed