Purpose: There has been a significant increase in surgeon as well as patient interest in arthroscopic treatment of shoulder pathology. We hypothesize that patients have a strong preference for arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Currently, there are no data in the literature reporting on how people perceive open versus arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Methods: Prospectively, a total of 202 patients were administered a questionnaire at the offices of 2 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons, 1 located at a tertiary referral center (center A) and 1 in private practice (center B). The questionnaire asked a series of questions about specific factors when choosing an orthopaedic surgeon and the preference for arthroscopic or open surgery. In addition, 7 short-term and long-term outcomes were listed, and the patient was asked to choose whether open or arthroscopic surgery would provide the best outcome or whether he or she felt that there was no difference. Results: Among patients at center A, 88% would prefer arthroscopy if they were to have shoulder surgery, as would 96% of patients at center B. Among patients at center A, 14% would avoid shoulder surgery if the only option was open surgery, as would 25% at center B. The reputation of the surgeon and institution were the primary factors in choosing a surgeon. Recommendation of a former patient and years of surgeon experience were less important factors for patient selection of a shoulder surgeon. Conclusions: The study shows that the vast majority of patients perceive multiple advantages of arthroscopic shoulder surgery despite a lack of published data to support many of these assumptions, particularly with regard to expected functional outcome of arthroscopic versus open shoulder surgery. Clinical Relevance: Shoulder surgeons should be aware of these perceptions when discussing treatment options with patients. A continued effort should be made to emphasize known scientific data when considering the relative risks and benefits of arthroscopic and open shoulder surgery.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Arthroscopy
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Arthroscopic versus open treatment of Bankart lesion of the shoulder: A prospective randomized study.Arthroscopy. 2004; 20: 456-462
- Open versus arthroscopic subacromial decompression: A prospective, randomized study of 34 patients followed for 8 years.Acta Orthop Scand. 2003; 74: 408-414
- Arthroscopic versus mini-open salvage repair of the rotator cuff tear: Outcome analysis at 2 to 6 years’ follow-up.Arthroscopy. 2003; 19: 746-754
- Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: A comparison of clinical outcome.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 1415-1420
- All-arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: A long-term retrospective outcome comparison.Arthroscopy. 2003; 19: 234-238
- Arthroscopic versus open Bankart repair: Analysis of patient subjective outcome and cost.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 1219-1222
- Open versus arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: A comparative view of 96 cases.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 597-604
- The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86: 219-224
- Results of arthroscopic versus open Bankart suture repair.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997; : 111-117
- Arthroscopic versus open repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability: A meta-analysis.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 652-658
- Glenohumeral chondrolysis after shoulder arthroscopy: Case reports and review of the literature.Am J Sports Med. 2004; 32: 509-515
The authors report no conflict of interest.
© 2007 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.