Better short-term outcomes of mini-open rotator cuff repair compared to full arthroscopic repair

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridKILIC, Ali Ihsan/0000-0001-7491-6044
dc.authoridKurt, Cengizhan/0000-0001-6395-5443
dc.authoridAkdemir, Mehmet/0000-0001-9638-4907
dc.contributor.authorAkdemir, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorKilic, Ali Ihsan
dc.contributor.authorKurt, Cengizhan
dc.contributor.authorCapkin, Sercan
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-20T09:50:26Z
dc.date.available2025-03-20T09:50:26Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.departmentİzmir Bakırçay Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractBackground: Rotator cuff tears commonly cause shoulder pain and functional impairment, prompting surgical intervention such as mini-open and arthroscopic methods, each with distinct benefits. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of these two approaches. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 165 patients who underwent rotator cuff repair using either arthroscopic-assisted mini-open or full arthroscopic approaches. Patient demographics, tear characteristics, clinical outcomes, and complications were assessed, with statistical analyses conducted to discern differences between the groups. Results: Among the patients, 74 (53.2%) received the mini-open approach, while 65 (46.8%) underwent arthroscopic repair, with a mean follow-up of 19.91 months. The mini-open group exhibited significantly higher postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores compared to the arthroscopic group (P=0.002). Additionally, the mini-open group demonstrated a more significant improvement in ASES scores from preoperative to postoperative assessments (P=0.001). However, the arthroscopic method had a significantly longer operative time (P<0.001). Complications, including anchor placement issues, frozen shoulder, infection, and re-rupture, occurred in 17.3% of patients overall. Re-rupture rates were 13.5% for mini-open and 6.2% for full arthroscopic repair, with no significant difference between the two methods (P=0.317). Conclusions: Both the mini-open and arthroscopic methods yielded favorable clinical outcomes for rotator cuff tear treatment, but the mini-open group exhibited superior results. Surgeons should consider patient characteristics, tear attributes, and surgical expertise when selecting the appropriate technique.
dc.identifier.doi10.5397/cise.2023.00745
dc.identifier.endpage218
dc.identifier.issn2288-8721
dc.identifier.issue2
dc.identifier.pmid38738322
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85195658068
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ4
dc.identifier.startpage212
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2023.00745
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14034/2191
dc.identifier.volume27
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001258289900011
dc.identifier.wosquality#YOK
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherKorean Shoulder And Elbow Soc
dc.relation.ispartofClinics in Shoulder and Elbow
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250319
dc.subjectRotator cuff tears
dc.subjectMini open rotator cuff surgery
dc.subjectArthroscopic rotator cuff surgery
dc.subjectComplications of rotator cuff surgery
dc.subjectSurgical techniques of rotator cuff surgery
dc.titleBetter short-term outcomes of mini-open rotator cuff repair compared to full arthroscopic repair
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu