Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An analysis of outcome of arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair using subjective and objective scoring tools

  • Shoulder
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

The purpose is to perform a comparative analysis of mini-open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs through the use of subjective and objective scoring tools. We conducted a prospective comparative cohort study that evaluated 123 consecutive patients who underwent rotator cuff repairs (arthroscopic and 31 mini-open repair). Subjective and objective functional assessment was performed preoperatively and postoperatively at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and the Constant–Murley score. Statistical analysis was performed on the datasets assessing the Pearson correlation coefficients and any significant differences present at each respective time point. At every time point the arthroscopic group scored better than the mini-open group, regardless of the assessment tool employed. The percentage recovery from the baseline measured at 1 year was similar with either treatment option. A significant difference was found between the arthroscopic and mini-open groups for the Constant–Murley, DASH and OSS scoring systems preoperatively (P < 0.05), reflecting a difference in tear severity. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is comparable with the mini-open technique with well correlated postoperative rates recovery. Subjective scoring provides an accurate and potentially easier method of postoperative assessment for long-term follow-up of rotator cuff repairs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson K, Boothby M, Aschenbrener D et al (2006) Outcome and structural integrity after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using 2 rows of fixation: minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 34:1899–1905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bennett WF (2003) Arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears: a prospective cohort with 2- to 4-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 19:380–390

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Buess E, Steuber KU, Waibl B (2005) Open versus arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a comparative view of 96 cases. Arthroscopy 21:597–604

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Codman EA (1911) Complete rupture of the supraspinatus tendon. Operative treatment with report of two successful cases. Boston Med Surg J 164:708–711

    Google Scholar 

  5. Constant CR (1991) Constant scoring technique for shoulder function. SECEC information Nr 3

  6. Constant MB, Murley MB (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop 214:160–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surgery (Br) 78:593–600

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ellman H, Hanker G, Bayer M (1986) Repair of the rotator cuff: end result study of the factors influencing reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 68:1136–1144

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA et al (2004) The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 86-A:219–224

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C (1996) The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand). Am J Ind Med 29:602–608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ide J, Maeda S, Takagi K (2005) A comparison of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy 21:1090–1098

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jones CK, Savoie FH 3rd (2003) Arthroscopic repair of large and massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy 19:564–571

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim SH, Ha KI, Park JH et al (2003) Arthroscopic versus mini-open salvage repair of the rotator cuff tear: outcome analysis at 2 to 6 years’ follow-up. Arthroscopy 19:746–754

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Richards RR, An K, Bigliani LU et al (1994) A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3:347–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sauerbrey AM, Getz CL, Piancastelli M et al (2005) Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a comparison of clinical outcome. Arthroscopy 21:1415–1420

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Severud EL, Ruotolo C, Abbott DD et al (2003) All-arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: A long-term retrospective outcome comparison. Arthroscopy 19:234–238

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Verma NN, Dunn W, Adler RS et al (2006) All arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a retrospective review with minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 22:587–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Warner JJ, Tétreault P, Lehtinen J et al (2005) Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a cohort comparison study. Arthroscopy 21:328–332

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yamaguchi K, Ball CM, Galatz LM (2001) Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: transition from mini-open to all-arthroscopic. Clin Orthop Relat Res 390:83–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Youm T, Murray DH, Kubiak EN et al (2005) Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14:455–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Department, King’s College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, UK

    T. Colegate-Stone, R. Allom, A. Tavakkolizadeh & J. Sinha

  2. 42 Quaggy Walk, London, SE3 9EJ, UK

    A. Tavakkolizadeh

Authors
  1. T. Colegate-Stone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Allom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Tavakkolizadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Sinha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Tavakkolizadeh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Colegate-Stone, T., Allom, R., Tavakkolizadeh, A. et al. An analysis of outcome of arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair using subjective and objective scoring tools. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17, 691–694 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0661-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0661-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation