Table 5. Summary of findings.
Arthroscopic vs open-mini repair for rotator cuff tears (12-month).
| Population: patients with rotator cuff tears. Settings: inpatient clinics. Intervention: arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Comparison: mini-open rotator cuff repair. Follow up: 12-months. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | SMD / MD (95% C.I.) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) |
| Function: DASH, WORC: (0 to 100). Higher values indicate better function | SMD -0.09 (-0.28–0.09) | 462 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,4 |
| Pain: VAS (0–10) Lower values indicate improved pain. | MD -0.35 (-1.02–0.31) | 194 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,4 |
| Range of motion: (forward flexion—degrees) Higher values indicate better range of motion. | MD 2.94 (-4.55–10.44) | 461 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3,4,5 |
| Range of motion: (external rotation—degrees) Higher values indicate better range of motion. | MD 3.71 (0.14–7.28) | 462 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3,4 |
1We downgraded by one level due to high risk of bias.
2We downgraded by one level due to a relatively small sample size.
3We downgraded by one level due to indirectness (surrogate outcomes).
4We downgraded by one level due to publication bias.
5We downgraded by one level due to inconsistency.
Abbreviations: VAS; visual analogue scale, DASH; Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand, WORC; western Ontario rotator cuff index, SMD; standardized mean difference, MD; mean difference, CI; confidence interval.