No difference in long-term outcome between open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair techniques have almost replaced open repairs. Short- and mid-term studies have shown comparable outcomes, with no clear superiority of either procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term clinical and imaging outcomes following arthroscopic or open rotator cuff repair. METHODS: Forty patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–documented, symptomatic supraspinatus or supraspinatus and infraspinatus tears were randomized to undergo arthroscopic or open rotator cuff repair. Clinical and radiographic follow-up was obtained at 6 weeks, 3 months, 1 year, 2 years, and >10 years postoperatively. Clinical assessment included measurement of active range of motion, visual analog scale score for pain, functional scoring according to the Constant-Murley score (CS), and assessment of the Subjective Shoulder Value. Imaging included conventional radiography and MRI for the assessment of cuff integrity and alteration of the deltoid muscle. RESULTS: We enrolled 20 patients with a mean age of 60 years (range, 50-71 years; standard deviation [SD], 6 years) in the arthroscopic surgery group and 20 patients with a mean age of 55 years (range, 39-67 years; SD, 8 years) in the open surgery group. More than 10 years’ follow-up was available for 13 patients in the arthroscopic surgery group and 11 patients in the open surgery group, with mean follow-up periods of 13.8 years (range, 11.9-15.2 years; SD, 1.1 years) and 13.1 years (range, 11.7-15 years; SD, 1.1 years), respectively. No statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes were identified between the 2 groups: The median absolute CS was 79 points (range, 14-84 points) in the arthroscopic surgery group and 84 points (range, 56-90 points) in the open surgery group (P = .177). The median relative CS was 94% (range, 20%-99%) and 96% (range, 65%-111%), respectively (P = .429). The median Subjective Shoulder Value was 93% (range, 20%-100%) and 93% (range, 10%-100%), respectively (P = .976). MRI evaluation showed a retear rate of 30% equally distributed between the 2 groups. Neither fatty infiltration of the deltoid muscle, deltoid muscle volume, nor the deltoid origin were different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: In a small cohort of patients, we could not document any difference in clinical and radiographic outcomes at long-term follow-up between arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair. The postulated harm to the deltoid muscle with the open technique could not be confirmed.