Article

Open Versus Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Comparative View of 96 Cases

Orthopaedic Department, Regional Hospital Tafers, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery (Impact Factor: 3.19). 06/2005; 21(5):597-604. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.01.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study was performed to review and compare the outcome of a consecutive series of 96 rotator cuff repairs performed with an open versus arthroscopic technique. The arthroscopic repairs include the beginning of the learning curve.
Case series.
In a 24-month period from 1999 to 2001, 95 patients underwent a cuff repair with bony reattachment by 1 surgeon; 4 patients had surgery on both shoulders. We present subjective outcome data from 96 of 99 operated shoulders by the use of a visual analog scale (VAS), the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and the question of overall patient satisfaction. Thirty shoulders undergoing surgery before February 2000 had open cuff repair (12 classic open, 18 mini-open) and 66 shoulders undergoing surgery after February 2000 had an arthroscopic cuff repair with suture anchors. All but 3 shoulders had the supraspinatus/infraspinatus tendon refixed, 32% had a subscapularis reattachment, and 21% an additional SLAP repair.
Groups A (30 shoulders, open repair) and B (66 shoulders, arthroscopic repair) were comparable concerning tear size, cause of the tear, professional shoulder strain, and preoperative pain intensity. At follow-up evaluation (15-40 months after surgery), group B had significantly better pain relief on the VAS (P < .05), more yes answers in the SST (9.7 vs. 8.7, not significant), and a higher patient satisfaction rate of 92.4% versus 80% (not significant). From the 12 questions of the SST, all but 1 showed a higher percentage of yes answers in group B; for 3 questions concerning mobility the difference was significant (P < .07). There was no correlation between tear size and outcome in the SST.
Arthroscopic cuff repair yielded equal or better results than open repair, even at the beginning of the learning curve. Patients with an arthroscopic repair had a significantly better decrease in pain and a better functional result concerning mobility. Arthroscopic repair is successful for large and small tears. Biomechanically, large tears might even benefit more than small ones.
Level IV.

0 Followers
 · 
102 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess the surgical results from patients undergoing repairs to rotator cuff injuries via open and arthroscopic procedures, with regard to functional and clinical features, and by means of ultrasound examinations, and to compare occurrences of renewed tearing. METHODS: Sixty patients underwent operations performed by the same surgeon (29 via open surgery and 31 via arthroscopy), to repair complete rotator cuff tears. The procedures were performed at Hospital Governor Israel Pinheiro (HGIP) and Mater Dei Hospital in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, between August 2007 and February 2009. The patients were assessed functionally by means of the UCLA score before and after the operation, and magnetic resonance imaging was done before the operation. All the patients were reassessed at least 12 months after the operation, and an ultrasound examination was also performed at this time. RESULTS: Out of the 29 patients who underwent open surgery, 27 (93.1%) presented good or excellent results, with a mean UCLA score of 32 after the operation. Their mean follow-up was 14 months. Three patients presented renewed tearing on ultrasound, of whom one remained asymptomatic. Out of the 31 patients who underwent arthroscopic procedures, 29 (93.5%) presented good or excellent results, with a mean UCLA score of 33 after the operation. Their mean follow-up was 19 months. Two patients presented renewed tearing, of whom one remained asymptomatic and one evolved with loosening of an anchor, with an unsatisfactory result. CONCLUSION: The repairs on rotator cuff injuries presented good results by means of both open surgery and arthroscopy, with similar functional results in the two groups and similar rates of renewed tearing.
    Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia 10/2011; 46(5):546-552. DOI:10.1590/S0102-36162011000500011
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of rotator cuff repairs is to achieve high initial fixation strength, minimize gap formation, maintain mechanical stability under cyclic loading and optimize the biology of the tendon-bone interface until the cuff heals biologically to the bone. Single row repairs are least successful in restoring the footprint of the rotator cuff and are most susceptible to gap formation. Double row repairs have an improved load to failure and minimal gap formation. Transosseous equivalent repairs (suture bridge technique) have the highest ultimate load and resistance to shear and rotational forces and the lowest gap formation. Even though the superior advantages of double row and transosseous equivalent repairs, those techniques take longer surgical time and are more expensive than single row repairs. Therefore single row repairs can be useful in bursal side partial thickness or small size full thickess rotator cuff tear.
    12/2008; 11(2). DOI:10.5397/CiSE.2008.11.2.077
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of patients with full-thickness small to large sized tears undergoing all-arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair. A literature search for electronic databases and references for eligible studies was conducted through Medline, Embase and Cochrane library between 1969 and 2013. A total of 12 comparative studies (n = 770 patients) were included. Pooled results showed: there were no differences in function outcome, pain scores, retear rate or the incidence of adhesive capsulitis between all arthroscopic and mini-open repair groups. There were no differences in outcomes between the arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repair techniques, they should be considered alternative treatment options. Level IV, Meta analysis.
    PLoS ONE 04/2014; 9(4):e94421. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0094421 · 3.53 Impact Factor