Purpose: Controversy remains regarding the results of all arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs compared to 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 all arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs and mini-open rotator cuff repairs with two years of follow-up data.

Method: A computerized search of articles published between 1966 and July 2006 was performed using Medline and PubMed. Additionally, a search of abstracts from four 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 at least two years and included the use of one of four validated functional outcome scores used to study shoulder pathology were included in the present meta-analysis. All outcome scores were normalized to a 100-point scale to allow outcome comparison.

Results: Five studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified. There was no difference in functional outcome scores between the arthroscopic and mini-open repair groups. There was a trend toward fewer complications in the arthroscopic repair group, however, this did not meet statistical significance.

Conclusion: In studies with at least two years of follow-up data, there was no significant difference in functional outcome scores between the arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repair techniques. The arthroscopic repair technique is a useful and successful alternative to the mini-open repair technique.