Update on all-arthroscopic vs. mini-open rotator cuff repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
systematic_review · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 33867750.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.jor.2021.03.009 and PMC identifier 8040116.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To provide an updated comparison between modern arthroscopic and mini-open repairs for treating rotator cuff tears. Multiple online databases were searched from 2010 to October 1st, 2020. A meta-analysis was conducted for patient-reported outcomes and complications. Eleven studies were included. Majority of patients underwent mini-open repair (MOR) compared to arthroscopic repair (AR) (57.4% vs 42.6%). A meta-analysis found statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in patient-reported outcomes favouring AR. While retear rates were higher in AR (p = 0.03) analysis of retear rates for arthroscopic double row and mini-open repairs, yielded no differences between groups (p = 0.48). Patients undergoing AR for rotator cuff tears had improved post-operative clinical outcomes in some functional outcomes compared to MOR. Modern arthroscopic double row repair result in similar failure rates to open repair techniques. Level III, Systematic Review of Level I-III studies.
Anatomy
- shoulder