A Comparative Analysis of Functional Recovery in Surgical Rotator Cuff Tear Repair: Mini-Open Versus All-Arthroscopic Techniques.

Introduction:  Rotator cuff tears frequently lead to shoulder pain and impaired function, often necessitating surgical intervention to achieve the best results. The choice between mini-open and all-arthroscopic techniques remains a subject of debate, with each approach offering unique advantages and challenges. This study seeks to evaluate and compare the functional outcomes of surgical repair utilizing these two techniques, offering valuable insights into their relative effectiveness.

Material And Methods:  This retrospective observational study was conducted at Shree Krishna Hospital, Karamsad, involving patients treated surgically for rotator cuff tears over the past five years. Clinical records were reviewed to identify patients who underwent either mini-open or all-arthroscopic repair. Follow-up assessments were conducted using the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (Quick DASH) score and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain. A statistical analysis was performed to compare outcomes between the two groups.

Results:  A total of 33 patients were included, with 16 undergoing mini-open repair and 17 undergoing all-arthroscopic repair. The mean follow-up duration was 31.06 months for mini-open repair and 20.4 months for all-arthroscopic repair. No statistically significant variances were observed in the postoperative Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (Quick DASH) scores or Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores between the two groups. Both techniques demonstrated satisfactory functional recovery and pain relief at long-term follow-up.

Conclusion: Our study provides evidence of comparable outcomes between mini-open and all-arthroscopic techniques for rotator cuff repair. Despite limitations such as a small sample size and the subjective nature of Quick DASH scores, both approaches offer promising results in terms of functional improvement and pain reduction. Further research is needed to assess short-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and patient satisfaction, but our findings support the continued use of both techniques in clinical practice.