{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,22]],"date-time":"2026-09-22T06:41:20Z","timestamp":1790059280833,"version":"4.0.1"},"reference-count":10,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2003,3,1]],"date-time":"2003-03-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1046476800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2003,3,1]],"date-time":"2003-03-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1046476800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/doi.wiley.com\/10.1002\/tdm_license_1.1"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Arthroscopy"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2003,3]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Purpose:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The goal of the study was to compare the results of all\u2010arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with those of our mini\u2010open rotator cuff repair.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Type of Study:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Retrospective outcome study.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Sixty\u2010four shoulders (58 patients) were identified; 35 in the all\u2010arthroscopic group and 29 in the mini\u2010open group. Average follow\u2010up for all patients was 44.6 months, with a minimum of 24 months. The all\u2010arthroscopic group included 3 small tears (&lt; 1 cm), 24 medium\u2010size tears (1 to 3 cm), and 9 large tears (3 to 5 cm). The mini\u2010open group included 2 small tears, 9 medium tears, and 18 large tears. All patients in both groups underwent arthroscopic assessment with arthroscopic subacromial decompression. None underwent formal acromioclavicular joint resection. Four of the all\u2010arthroscopic and 11 of the mini\u2010open patients underwent coplaning of the acromioclavicular joint. Anchors were the primary method of arthroscopic fixation, with an average of 1.5 anchors per case.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The average final follow\u2010up UCLA score for the arthroscopic group was 32.6 and for the mini\u2010open group was 31.4, and the average final follow\u2010up ASES score for the arthroscopic group was 91.7 and for the mini\u2010open group was 90.0. No patients in the arthroscopic group developed fibrous ankylosis, whereas 4 patients in the mini\u2010open group developed the condition (14%). No anchor\u2010related complications were noted. Shoulders in the all\u2010arthroscopic group showed greater motion at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively and slightly better motion at final review. However, final motion difference was not statistically significant. Overall, 4 patients (6.3%) demonstrated some tenderness in the acromioclavicular joint on palpation, but none had clinical symptoms requiring treatment.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>All\u2010arthroscopic cuff repair provides comparable outcomes and complication rates to arthroscopic decompression with mini\u2010open repair. The lower incidence of fibrous ankylosis favors the all\u2010arthroscopic technique. A trend for better early motion was also noted in the all\u2010arthroscopic group. Analysis of variance shows no measurable outcome difference between tear sizes.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1053\/jars.2003.50036","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2003,6,30]],"date-time":"2003-06-30T15:47:00Z","timestamp":1056988020000},"page":"234-238","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":209,"title":["All\u2010arthroscopic versus mini\u2010open rotator cuff repair: A long\u2010term retrospective outcome comparison"],"prefix":"10.1002","volume":"19","author":[{"given":"Erik L.","family":"Severud","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Private Practice Laguna Hills California U.S.A."}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Charles","family":"Ruotolo","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Private Practice Laguna Hills California U.S.A."}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Douglas D.","family":"Abbott","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Private Practice Laguna Hills California U.S.A."}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Wesley M.","family":"Nottage","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Private Practice Laguna Hills California U.S.A."}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2003,3,1]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_2_2_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/036354659402200104"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/036354659502300117"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0749-8063(00)90026-4"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_5_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2106\/00004623-198466040-00011"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0749-8063(98)70119-7"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2106\/00004623-199801000-00007"},{"issue":"1","key":"e_1_2_2_8_1","article-title":"Arthroscopic repair of complete isolated rotator cuff tears (abstract)","volume":"17","author":"Kersey RC","year":"2001","journal-title":"Arthroscopy"},{"issue":"1","key":"e_1_2_2_9_1","article-title":"All\u2010arthroscopic versus mini\u2010open repair in the management of tears of the rotator cuff: A prospective evaluation (abstract)","volume":"17","author":"Weber SC","year":"2001","journal-title":"Arthroscopy"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1053\/jars.2001.26821"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_11_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1053\/jars.2002.30443"}],"container-title":["Arthroscopy"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.elsevier.com\/content\/article\/PII:S0749806302376631?httpAccept=text\/xml","content-type":"text\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/api.elsevier.com\/content\/article\/PII:S0749806302376631?httpAccept=text\/plain","content-type":"text\/plain","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/arthroscopyjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1053\/jars.2003.50036","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/arthroscopyjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1053\/jars.2003.50036","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/arthroscopyjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1053\/jars.2003.50036","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,14]],"date-time":"2026-05-14T08:54:57Z","timestamp":1778748897000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/arthroscopyjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1053\/jars.2003.50036"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2003,3]]},"references-count":10,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2003,3]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1053\/jars.2003.50036"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1053\/jars.2003.50036","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0749-8063","1526-3231"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0749-8063","type":"print"},{"value":"1526-3231","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2003,3]]}}}