The aim of this study was to determine whether there is any significant
difference in temporal measurements of pain, function and rates
of re-tear for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) patients compared
with those patients undergoing open RCR. This study compared questionnaire- and clinical examination-based
outcomes over two years or longer for two series of patients who
met the inclusion criteria: 200 open RCR and 200 arthroscopic RCR
patients. All surgery was performed by a single surgeon. Objectives
Methods
We identified ten patients who underwent arthroscopic revision of anterior shoulder stabilisation between 1999 and 2005. Their results were compared with 15 patients, matched for age and gender, who had a primary arthroscopic stabilisation during the same period. At a mean follow-up of 37 and 36 months, respectively, the scores for pain and shoulder function improved significantly between the pre-operative and follow-up visits in both groups (p = 0.002), with no significant difference between them (p = 0.4). The UCLA and Rowe shoulder scores improved significantly (p = 0.004 and p = 0.002, respectively), with no statistically significant differences between groups (p = 0.6). Kaplan-Meier analysis for time to recurrent instability showed no differences between the groups (p = 0.2). These results suggest that arthroscopic revision anterior shoulder stabilisation is as reliable as primary arthroscopic stabilisation for patients who have had previous open surgery for recurrent anterior instability.
