Mini-open versus all-arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Comparison of the operative costs and the clinical outcomes
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Köse, K.Ç., Tezen, E., Cebesoy, O. et al. Adv Therapy (2008) 25: 249. doi:10.1007/s12325-008-0031-0
- 149 Downloads
Rotator cuff injury is one of the most frequently encountered problems of the shoulder in the daily practice of orthopaedic surgeons. This study compared all-arthroscopic cuff repair (ARCR) and mini-open rotator cuff repair (MORCR) methods in regard to clinical outcomes and costs.
Fifty patient charts and operative repairs were analysed (25 ARCR and 25 MORCR). Pre-and postoperative Constant-Murley and UCLA scores along with factors such as tear size, tear type, pre-operative physical therapy, motion and satisfaction levels were compared for the two procedures. Cost-benefit analysis was also performed for comparison between procedures. The duration of follow-up was 31.20 and 21.56 months for MORCR and ARCR groups, respectively.
Tear sizes (P=0.68), pre-and postoperative Constant-Murley and UCLA scores (P=0.254) and satisfaction levels were not significantly different between groups. However, the differences between pre-and postoperative Constant-Murley and UCLA scores were statistically significant within both groups (P<0.01). The MORCR group stayed 1 day longer in hospital than the ARCR group, which was statistically significant (P=0.036). The differences regarding mean pain scores, abductions, internal and external rotations in Constant-Murley scores and forward flexion scores in UCLA scores were not significant. The ARCR group cost more, leaving less profit.
Results suggest that ARCR yields similar clinical results but at a higher cost compared with MORCR.