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

  • T. Colegate-Stone
  • R. Allom
  • A. Tavakkolizadeh
  • J. Sinha


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.


Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair Mini-open rotator cuff repair Subjective scoring Objective scoring 


  1. 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 34:1899–1905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennett WF (2003) Arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears: a prospective cohort with 2- to 4-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 19:380–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buess E, Steuber KU, Waibl B (2005) Open versus arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a comparative view of 96 cases. Arthroscopy 21:597–604PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Codman EA (1911) Complete rupture of the supraspinatus tendon. Operative treatment with report of two successful cases. Boston Med Surg J 164:708–711Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Constant CR (1991) Constant scoring technique for shoulder function. SECEC information Nr 3Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Constant MB, Murley MB (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop 214:160–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surgery (Br) 78:593–600Google Scholar
  8. 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) 68:1136–1144Google Scholar
  9. 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:219–224Google Scholar
  10. 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 29:602–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ide J, Maeda S, Takagi K (2005) A comparison of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy 21:1090–1098PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones CK, Savoie FH 3rd (2003) Arthroscopic repair of large and massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy 19:564–571PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 19:746–754PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Richards RR, An K, Bigliani LU et al (1994) A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3:347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sauerbrey AM, Getz CL, Piancastelli M et al (2005) Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a comparison of clinical outcome. Arthroscopy 21:1415–1420PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 19:234–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 22:587–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Warner JJ, Tétreault P, Lehtinen J et al (2005) Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a cohort comparison study. Arthroscopy 21:328–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yamaguchi K, Ball CM, Galatz LM (2001) Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: transition from mini-open to all-arthroscopic. Clin Orthop Relat Res 390:83–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 14:455–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Colegate-Stone
    • 1
  • R. Allom
    • 1
  • A. Tavakkolizadeh
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Sinha
    • 1
  1. 1.Orthopaedic DepartmentKing’s College HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.LondonUK

Personalised recommendations