A two-year clinical outcomes study of 400 patients, comparing open surgery and arthroscopy for rotator cuff repair

Abstract

ObjectivesThe 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.MethodsThis 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. ResultsMost pain measurements were similar for both groups. However, the arthroscopic RCR group reported less night pain severity at six months, less extreme pain and greater satisfaction with their overall shoulder condition than the open RCR group. The arthroscopic RCR patients also had earlier recovery of strength and range of motion, achieving near maximal recovery by six months post-operatively whereas the open RCR patients took longer to reach the same recovery level. The median operative times were 40 minutes (20 to 90) for arthroscopic RCR and 60 minutes (35 to 120) for open RCR. Arthroscopic RCR had a 29% re-tear rate compared with 52% for the open RCR group (p < 0.001). ConclusionsArthroscopic RCR involved less extreme pain than open RCR, earlier functional recovery, a shorter operative time and better repair integrity.