Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A comparison of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair.
Arthroscopy. 2005 Sep; 21(9):1090-8.A

Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the results of all-arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears including massive tear with those of open repair.

TYPE OF STUDY

Nonrandomized control study.

METHODS

We evaluated 100 consecutive patients (100 shoulders) who were treated for full-thickness rotator cuff tears either by all-arthroscopic (50 patients) or open repair (50 patients). The mean age was 57 years (range, 24 to 78 years). The mean follow-up period was 49 months (range, 25 to 83 months). Of all the patients, 7 had a small tear, 63 a medium tear, 17 a large tear, and 13 a massive tear; in the arthroscopic group, 5 had a small tear, 28 a medium tear, 9 a large tear, and 8 a massive tear. The results of the arthroscopic and open groups were compared using the shoulder rating scale of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA).

RESULTS

The 2 groups were statistically similar in terms of age, gender, trauma incidence, tear size, duration of symptoms, and preoperative shoulder scores. The UCLA and JOA scores improved significantly in both groups postoperatively. Outcomes and the postoperative UCLA and JOA scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The postoperative UCLA and JOA scores in patients with a large-to-massive tear were significantly lower than those with a small-to-medium tear, but outcomes were not statistically different between the arthroscopic and open groups depending on the tear size. The percentage of satisfactory results of arthroscopic and open repair for small-to-medium tears was 97.0% and 94.6%, respectively. Those of arthroscopic and open repair for large-to-massive tears was 82.4% and 76.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic repair of small-to-massive tears had outcomes equivalent to those of open repair. Outcomes in patients with large-to-massive tears were inferior to those in patients with small-to-medium tears, regardless of repair method.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control study.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kumamoto University Hospital, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan. ide@kaiju.medic.kumamoto-u.ac.jpNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16171634

Citation

Ide, Junji, et al. "A Comparison of Arthroscopic and Open Rotator Cuff Repair." Arthroscopy : the Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery : Official Publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association, vol. 21, no. 9, 2005, pp. 1090-8.
Ide J, Maeda S, Takagi K. A comparison of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(9):1090-8.
Ide, J., Maeda, S., & Takagi, K. (2005). A comparison of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy : the Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery : Official Publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association, 21(9), 1090-8.
Ide J, Maeda S, Takagi K. A Comparison of Arthroscopic and Open Rotator Cuff Repair. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(9):1090-8. PubMed PMID: 16171634.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A comparison of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair. AU - Ide,Junji, AU - Maeda,Satoshi, AU - Takagi,Katsumasa, PY - 2005/9/21/pubmed PY - 2006/3/21/medline PY - 2005/9/21/entrez SP - 1090 EP - 8 JF - Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association JO - Arthroscopy VL - 21 IS - 9 N2 - PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the results of all-arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears including massive tear with those of open repair. TYPE OF STUDY: Nonrandomized control study. METHODS: We evaluated 100 consecutive patients (100 shoulders) who were treated for full-thickness rotator cuff tears either by all-arthroscopic (50 patients) or open repair (50 patients). The mean age was 57 years (range, 24 to 78 years). The mean follow-up period was 49 months (range, 25 to 83 months). Of all the patients, 7 had a small tear, 63 a medium tear, 17 a large tear, and 13 a massive tear; in the arthroscopic group, 5 had a small tear, 28 a medium tear, 9 a large tear, and 8 a massive tear. The results of the arthroscopic and open groups were compared using the shoulder rating scale of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA). RESULTS: The 2 groups were statistically similar in terms of age, gender, trauma incidence, tear size, duration of symptoms, and preoperative shoulder scores. The UCLA and JOA scores improved significantly in both groups postoperatively. Outcomes and the postoperative UCLA and JOA scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The postoperative UCLA and JOA scores in patients with a large-to-massive tear were significantly lower than those with a small-to-medium tear, but outcomes were not statistically different between the arthroscopic and open groups depending on the tear size. The percentage of satisfactory results of arthroscopic and open repair for small-to-medium tears was 97.0% and 94.6%, respectively. Those of arthroscopic and open repair for large-to-massive tears was 82.4% and 76.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic repair of small-to-massive tears had outcomes equivalent to those of open repair. Outcomes in patients with large-to-massive tears were inferior to those in patients with small-to-medium tears, regardless of repair method. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study. SN - 1526-3231 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16171634/A_comparison_of_arthroscopic_and_open_rotator_cuff_repair_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749-8063(05)00674-2 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -