Arthroscopic Versus Mini-Open Rotator Cuff Repair: An Up-to-Date Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repairs based on recently published Level I randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We systematically searched electronic databases to identify RCTs that compared arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repairs from 1980 to October 2013. The clinical outcome scores, including the University of California, Los Angeles score and the Constant-Murley score, were converted to a common 100-point outcome score for further analysis. The results of the pooled studies were analyzed in terms of surgery time, weighted 100-point score, pain on a visual analog scale (VAS), and range of motion. Study quality was assessed and relevant data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Five RCTs, including 166 patients in the arthroscopic repair group and 163 patients in the mini-open repair group, were included in this meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in surgery time (P = .11), weighted 100-point score (P = .65), VAS pain score (P = .87), or range of motion (P = .29 for forward flexion and P = .82 for external rotation). On the basis of current literature, no differences in surgery time, functional outcome score, VAS pain score, and range of motion were found at the end of follow-up between the arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repair techniques. In addition, there was no significant difference in VAS pain score in the early phase between the 2 repairs. Level I, meta-analysis of Level I studies.