title: Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a comparison of clinical outcome.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the outcome of patients who underwent rotator cuff repair using all arthroscopic or mini-open repair techniques.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective comparative study.
  
  
  METHODS
  We retrospectively reviewed 54 patients who underwent either mini-open or arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Twenty-six patients underwent mini-open repair and 28 patients had arthroscopic repair. Follow-up averaged 33 months (range, 18 to 48 months) for the mini-open group and 19 months (range, 13 to 26 months) for the arthroscopic group. The patient groups were similar with regard to age, activity level, mechanisms of injury, associated findings at surgery, and tear size measured in square centimeters. The outcome for the 2 groups was evaluated using a modified American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) score. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson correlations and the Student t test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The tear size averaged 2.7 cm2 for the mini-open group and 2.0 cm2 for the arthroscopic group (P = .754). All patients showed significant improvement in their scores for pain, satisfaction, and function at the time of follow-up. The average preoperative and postoperative scores for the mini-open group were as follows: pain 17 and 27 (30 possible points), satisfaction 3 and 9 (10 possible points), function 32 and 53 (60 possible points), and total 52 and 89 (100 possible points) (P < .05). For patients who underwent arthroscopic repair, average preoperative and postoperative scores were as follows: pain 12 and 26, satisfaction 2 and 9, function 28 and 51, and total, 42 and 86 (P < .05). Improvement in scores within each group was significant, but the difference in total scores between the 2 techniques was not statistically significant.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study confirms that short-term results for arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repair are similar and supports continued use of arthroscopic repair techniques.
  
  
  METHODS
  Level III, retrospective comparative study.
authors.affiliation: Shoulder and Elbow Service, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
authors.forename: Andreas M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Sauerbrey
authors.forename: Charles L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Getz
authors.forename: Marco
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Piancastelli
authors.forename: Joseph P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Iannotti
authors.forename: Matthew L
authors.initials: ML
authors.lastname: Ramsey
authors.forename: Gerald R
authors.initials: GR
authors.lastname: Williams
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001182:Arthroscopy / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011182:Postoperative Care; D020127:Recovery of Function; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D017006:Rotator Cuff / Q000601:surgery*; D000070636:Rotator Cuff Injuries; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D016896:Treatment Outcome