Early clinical and patient-reported outcomes for arthroscopic and mini-open superior capsular reconstruction are similar for irreparable rotator cuff tears.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to report and compare postoperative range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcomes, and failure rates following superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) and to compare outcomes between arthroscopic and mini-open techniques. METHODS: All SCR procedures utilising dermal allograft with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up at multiple institutions between November 2015 and October 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative patient demographics, imaging measurements, surgical technique (arthroscopic versus mini-open), and outcomes including pain scores, conversion to reverse shoulder arthroplasty, subsequent surgery, and postoperative ROM were recorded. Outcomes for arthroscopic versus mini-open approaches were compared via t-test, Fisher's exact test, or chi square test, as appropriate, with differences of p ​< ​0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: 180 total patients were included, including 98 who underwent arthroscopic SCR and 82 who underwent mini-open SCR. Final follow-up was at a mean of 32 months (standard deviation = 11 months). SCR improved pain (visual analog scale ​= ​4.4 pre-operatively vs. 1.4 post-operatively, p ​< ​0.0001) and ROMin active forward flexion (136° pre-operatively vs. 150° post-operatively, p ​= ​0.0012). No difference in post-operative pain visual analog scores was found between mini-open and arthroscopic cohorts (1.3 vs. 1.6, p ​= ​0.3432) at a mean of 14 months post-operatively. At a mean of 32 months post-operatively, there were no differences in ASES, QuickDASH, SST, WORC, or SANE scores between open and arthroscopic cohorts. There was no difference in rates of failure between mini-open and arthroscopic cohorts (15.9% vs. 17.3%, p ​= ​0.789). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that SCR improves pain and ROM in the short term. Mini-open SCR appears to provide similar improvements in pain and ROM compared with arthroscopic SCR, as well as patient-reported outcomes at 3 years. No difference in failure rates was detected between the 2 procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3 evidence.

Duke Scholars

Author Tally Edward Lassiter Orthopaedic Surgery

Author Jocelyn Ross Wittstein Orthopaedic Surgery

Author Alison Patricia Toth Orthopaedic Surgery

Author Brian Chei-Fai Lau Orthopaedic Surgery