Mini-open versus all-arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Comparison of the operative costs and the clinical outcomes
- First Online:
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.
Key wordsarthroscopic repair clinical outcome cost analysis mini-open repair rotator cuff tear
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Codman EA. Rupture of the supraspinatus tendon. 1911. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(254):3-26.Google Scholar
- 5.Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160–164.Google Scholar
- 6.Amstutz HC, Sew Hoy AL, Clarke IC. UCLA anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981;(155):7–20.Google Scholar
- 13.Weber SC, Schaefer R. “Mini open” versus traditional open repair in the management of small and moderate size tears of the rotator cuff. Arthroscopy. 1993;9:365–366.Google Scholar
- 20.Gazielly DF, Gleyze P, Montagnon C. Functional and anatomical results after rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;(304):43–53.Google Scholar
- 24.Romeo AA, Hang DW, Bach BR Jr, Shott S. Repair of full thickness rotator cuff tears. Gender, age, and other factors affecting outcome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;(367):243–255.Google Scholar