Comparison of clinical outcomes and repair integrity after arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: An observational study

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorTosyali H.K.
dc.contributor.authorKaya H.
dc.contributor.authorHancioglu S.
dc.contributor.authorTamsel I.
dc.contributor.authorOrguc S.
dc.contributor.authorTekustun F.
dc.contributor.authorKayikci K.
dc.contributor.authorKucuk L.
dc.contributor.authorOzalp T.
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-22T08:01:26Z
dc.date.available2024-07-22T08:01:26Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractThis study aimed to evaluate the differences between mini-open (MO) and arthroscopic (ART) repair procedures for rotator cuff tendon tears in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes. This retrospective study included 59 patients, and data were collected prospectively. Patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears were randomized to undergo MO or ART repair at 2 centers by 2 surgeons between January 2012 and December 2017. Data were collected 3 weeks before surgery and 6 and 12 months after surgery. Physical function was assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons index, VAS, and Constant scoring system. Radiological outcomes were assessed using the Sugaya classification, adapted for ultrasound. Changes between baseline and follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. Fifty-nine patients who underwent ART or MO rotator cuff repair were included in this study. The 2 groups had similar demographic characteristics and preoperative baseline parameters. Both the MO and ART groups showed statistically significant improvement in outcome parameters (P ≤.0001); however, cuff repair integrity was significantly better in the ART group (P = .023). All other improvements in the patient-derived parameters were equivalent. None of the patients in either group required revision surgery. According to the results of our retrospective study, MO and ART rotator cuff repair are effective and viable options for surgeons to repair rotator cuff tears. There were no differences in objective and subjective outcomes between the full ART and MO techniques for rotator cuff tears. Surgeons should choose a technique with which they are more familiar. © 2024 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
dc.identifier.DOI-ID10.1097/MD.0000000000038181
dc.identifier.issn00257974
dc.identifier.urihttp://akademikarsiv.cbu.edu.tr:4000/handle/123456789/11454
dc.language.isoEnglish
dc.publisherLippincott Williams and Wilkins
dc.rightsAll Open Access; Gold Open Access
dc.subjectcefazolin
dc.subjectacromioplasty
dc.subjectadult
dc.subjectAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score
dc.subjectarthroscopic surgery
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectclinical outcome
dc.subjectConstant Murley (score)
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjectdemographics
dc.subjectechography
dc.subjectelbow radiography
dc.subjectfemale
dc.subjectfollow up
dc.subjectfunctional status
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectintermethod comparison
dc.subjectmajor clinical study
dc.subjectmale
dc.subjectnuclear magnetic resonance imaging
dc.subjectobservational study
dc.subjectopen surgery
dc.subjectpostoperative pain
dc.subjectprospective study
dc.subjectretrospective study
dc.subjectrotator cuff repair
dc.subjectrotator cuff rupture
dc.subjectsurgical infection
dc.subjectvisual analog scale
dc.titleComparison of clinical outcomes and repair integrity after arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: An observational study
dc.typeArticle

Files

Collections

Scopus Koleksiyonu