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

PurposeThe 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).MethodsWe 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.ResultsFive 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).ConclusionsOn 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 of EvidenceLevel I, meta-analysis of Level I studies.