Please check your email for the verification action. You may continue to use the site and you are now logged in, but you will not be able to return to the site in future until you confirm your email address.
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.