Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Selection of studies for inclusion in the systematic review.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Summary of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studies.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Risk of bias summary: Review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

Grade evidence profile: Arthroscopic vs mini-open for patients with rotator cuff tears.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Summary of findings.

Arthroscopic vs open-mini repair for rotator cuff tears (3-month).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Summary of findings.

Arthroscopic vs open-mini repair for rotator cuff tears (6-month).

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Summary of findings.

Arthroscopic vs open-mini repair for rotator cuff tears (12-month).

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 3.

Forest plot of comparison: Arthroscopic vs Open-mini, 3 months after surgery–rotator cuff repair, outcome: Function (DASH, Constant, WORC), 4 RCTs.

Higher values indicate better/improved function.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Forest plot of comparison: Arthroscopic vs Open-mini, 6 months after surgery–rotator cuff repair, outcome: Function (DASH, Constant, WORC), 4 RCTs.

Higher values indicate better/improved function.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Forest plot of comparison: Arthroscopic vs Open-mini, 12 months after surgery–rotator cuff repair, outcome: Function (DASH, WORC), 3 RCTs.

Higher values indicate better/improved function.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Forest plot of comparison: Arthroscopic vs Open-mini, 3 months after surgery–rotator cuff repair, outcome: Pain (VAS 0–10), 3 RCTs.

Lower values indicate better/improved pain.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Forest plot of comparison: Arthroscopic vs Open-mini, 6 months after surgery–rotator cuff repair, outcome: Pain (VAS 0–10), 3 RCTs.

Lower values indicate better/improved pain.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Forest plot of comparison: Arthroscopic vs Open-mini, 12 months after surgery–rotator cuff repair, outcome: Pain (VAS 0–10), 2 RCTs.

Lower values indicate better/improved pain.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Forest plot of comparison: Arthroscopic vs Open-mini, 3 months after surgery–rotator cuff repair, outcome: ROM (Forward Flexion°), 5 RCTs.

Higher values indicate better/improved ROM.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Forest plot of comparison: Arthroscopic vs Open-mini, 6 months after surgery–rotator cuff repair, outcome: ROM (Forward Flexion°), 5 RCTs.

Higher values indicate better/improved ROM.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Forest plot of comparison: Arthroscopic vs Open-mini, 12 months after surgery–rotator cuff repair, outcome: ROM (Forward Flexion°), 3 RCTs.

1.1.2 Subgroup analysis by high risk of detection bias, 2 RCTs. Higher values indicate better/improved ROM.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Forest plot of comparison: Arthroscopic vs Open-mini, 3 months after surgery–rotator cuff repair, outcome: ROM (External Rotation°), 5 RCTs.

Higher values indicate better/improved ROM.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Forest plot of comparison: Arthroscopic vs Open-mini, 6 months after surgery–rotator cuff repair, outcome: ROM (External Rotation°), 4 RCTs.

Higher values indicate better/improved ROM.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Forest plot of comparison: Arthroscopic vs Open-mini, 12 months after surgery–rotator cuff repair, outcome: ROM (External Rotation°), 3 RCTs.

Higher values indicate better/improved ROM.

More »

Fig 14 Expand