Skip to main content
Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Results in Lower Two-Year Reoperation Rates Compared With Open Rotator Cuff Repair in a Large Cross-sectional Cohort.
Published Web Locationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2021.10.008
PurposeTo use a large, contemporary database to perform a cross-sectional analysis of current practice trends in rotator cuff repair (RCR) for the treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tear (RCT) and determine outcomes of arthroscopic and open RCR, including hospital readmissions and 2-year reoperation rates with accurate laterality tracking using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes.
MethodsThe PearlDiver Mariner dataset was used to query patients with full-thickness RCTs from 2010 to 2017. Propensity-score matching was performed to account for differences in age and comorbidities and allow for comparison between those undergoing open RCR and arthroscopic RCR. Subsequent procedures were tracked using ICD-10 codes to identify ipsilateral surgery within 2 years of index surgery. Hospital and emergency department admission within 30 days of surgery were investigated.
ResultsOf 534,076 patients diagnosed with full-thickness RCT, 37% underwent RCR; 73% of which were arthroscopic. From 2010 to 2017, arthroscopic RCRs increased from 65% to 80%, whereas open RCRs decreased from 35% to 20% (P < .0001). Younger patients underwent arthroscopic RCR more frequently, and patients who underwent open RCR had greater rates of 30-day emergency department (7.0%) and hospital readmission (2.0%) compared with arthroscopic RCR (6.3%, 1.0%, respectively) (P < .0001). For 24,392 patients with ICD-10 coding and 2-year follow-up, 10.4% of patients required reoperation, with the most common procedure being revision RCR, and 1.3% required conversion to arthroplasty. Open RCRs were more likely to require subsequent surgery (11.3%) compared with arthroscopic RCR (9.5%) (P < .0001). Patients aged 50 to 59 had the greatest rate of reoperation (14.0%), but no patients younger than age 40 years required reoperation, and no patients younger than age 50 years required conversion to arthroplasty.
ConclusionsThe frequency of arthroscopic RCR has continued to increase compared to open RCR. In this large cross-sectional analysis, arthroscopic RCR demonstrated lower 2-year reoperation rates and 30-day readmission rates compared to open RCR.
Level of evidenceIII, cross-sectional study.
Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
Fast Web View:
Preparing document for printing…