• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.88-97
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes between arthroscopir repair and mini-open repair of medium and large rotator cuff tears in which arthroscopic repair was technically unsuccessful. We evaluated 76 patients of full-thickness rotator cuff tears, among them 42 patients had all-arthroscopic and 34 patients had mini-open salvage repairs. Patients who had acromioclavicular arthritis, subscapularis tear, or instability were excluded. There were 39 males and 37 females with mean age of 56 years (range,42 to 75 years). At a mean follow-up of 39 months (range, 24 to 64 months), the results of both groups were compared with regard to the UCLA and ASES shoulder rating scale s. Shoulder scores improved in all ratings in both groups (p > 0.05). Overall, sixty-six patients showed excellent or gr)of and ten patients showed fair or poor scores by the UCLA scale. Seventy-two patients satisfactorily returned to prior activity. Four showed unsatisfactory return. The range of motion, strength, and patient's satisfaction were improved postoperatively. There were no difference in shoulder scores, pain, and activity return between the arthroscopic and mini-open salvage groups (p > 0.05). However, Patients with larger size tear showed lower shoulder scores and less predictive recovery of the strength and function (p < 0.05). Postoperative pain was not different with respect to the size of the tear (p : 0.251). Arthroscopic repair of medium and large full-thickness rotator cuff tears had iln equal outcome to technically unsuccessful arthroscopic repairs, which were salvaged by conversion to a mini- open repair technique. Surgical outcome depended on the size of the tear, rather than the method of repair.