Effects of arthroscopic vs. mini-open rotator cuff repair on function, pain & range of motion. A systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 14; no. 10; p. e0222953
• Main Authors: Nazari, Goris, MacDermid, Joy C, Bryant, Dianne, Dewan, Neha, Athwal, George S
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 31.10.2019; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Arthritis; Arthroscopy; Bias; Biology and Life Sciences; Clinical outcomes; Clinical trials; Collaboration; Comparative analysis; Female; Handbooks; Humans; Joint surgery; Male; Medical ethics; Medical research; Medicine and Health Sciences; Meta-analysis; Middle Aged; Orthopedic surgery; Pain; Pain - physiopathology; Pain - surgery; Pain Management - methods; Patients; Physical Sciences; Physical therapy; Quality; Range of Motion, Articular - physiology; Rehabilitation; Repair; Research and Analysis Methods; Rotator cuff; Rotator cuff repair; Rotator Cuff Tear Arthropathy - physiopathology; Rotator Cuff Tear Arthropathy - therapy; Science Policy; Studies; Surgery; Systematic review; Young Adult; Canada
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222953

To assess the effectiveness of arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair on function, pain and range of motion at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow ups. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clinical setting. Patients 18 years and older with a rotator cuff tear. Arthroscopic/mini-open rotator cuff repair surgery followed by post operative rehabilitation. Function and pain. Six RCTs (n = 670) were included. The pooled results, demonstrated no significant difference between arthroscopic and mini open approach to rotator cuff repair on function (very low quality, 4 RCTs, 495 patients, SMD 0.00, 3-month; very low quality, 4 RCTs, 495 patients, SMD -0.01, 6-month; very low quality, 3 RCTs, 462 patients, SMD -0.09, 12-months). For pain, the pooled results, were not statistically different between groups (very low quality, 3 RCTs, 254 patients, MD -0.21, 3-month; very low quality, 3 RCTs, 254 patients, MD -0.03, 6-month; very low quality, 2 RCTs, 194 patients, MD -0.35, 12-months). The effects of arthroscopic compared to mini-open rotator cuff repair, on function, pain and range of motion are too small to be clinically important at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow ups.