Mini-open versus all-arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: comparison of the operative costs and the clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that ARCR yields similar clinical results but at a higher cost compared with MORCR.