Bone and Joint Institute
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2019
Journal
PLOS ONE
Volume
14
Issue
10
URL with Digital Object Identifier
10.1371/journal.pone.0222953
Abstract
Objective 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. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Setting Clinical setting. Participants Patients 18 years and older with a rotator cuff tear. Intervention/Comparison Arthroscopic/mini-open rotator cuff repair surgery followed by post operative rehabilitation. Main outcome measures Function and pain. Results 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). Conclusion 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.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Notes
©2019 Nazariet al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,provided the original author and source are credited.
This article was originally published as:
Nazari G, MacDermid J C, Bryant D, Dewan N, Athwal G S (2019) Effects of arthroscopic vs. mini-open rotator cuff repair on function, pain & range of motion. A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS ONE 14(10): e0222953. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.022295