No difference in outcome for open versus arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a prospective comparative trial.

PURPOSE: Arthroscopic techniques tend to become the gold standard in rotator cuff repair. However, little data are reported in the literature regarding the improvement of postoperative outcomes and re-tear rate relative to conventional open surgery. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and cuff integrity after arthroscopic versus open cuff repair.

METHODS: We prospectively assessed clinical outcomes and cuff integrity after an arthroscopic or open rotator cuff repair with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Clinical evaluation was based on Constant score, Simple Shoulder Value (SSV) and American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES). Rotator cuff healing was explored with ultrasound.

RESULTS: 44 patients in arthroscopic group A (mean age 56-year-old) and 43 in open group O (mean age 61-year-old) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Tendons were repaired with a single row technique associated with biceps tenodesis and subacromial decompression. All objective clinical scores significantly improved postoperatively in both groups. No statistical difference was identified between group A and O regarding, respectively, Constant score (72 vs 75 points; p = 0.3), ASES score (88 vs 91 points; p = 0.3), and SSV (81 vs 85%). The overall rate of re-tear (Sugaya type IV or V) reached 7 and 9%, respectively, in group A and O (p = 0.8).

CONCLUSION: This study did not prove any difference of arthroscopic over open surgery in case of rotator cuff repair regarding clinical outcome and cuff integrity at 1-year follow-up.

LEVEL II: Prospective comparative study.