ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2026
Reimbursement, efficiency, and safety in rotator cuff repair: a comparative study of arthroscopic and open approaches.
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRotator cuff repair (RCR) is one of the most common orthopedic procedures in the United States. Although arthroscopic and open RCR yield similar long-term outcomes, differences in reimbursement and short-term safety are less understood. This study aimed to evaluate differences between RCR techniques in work relative value units (wRVUs), operative times, Medicare reimbursement amounts, and 30-day complication rates.
methodsFor data collection, the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was retrospectively analyzed (2006-2023). Patients undergoing arthroscopic or open RCR were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes and matched 1:1 via propensity score matching according to demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes included operative time, wRVUs, Medicare reimbursement amount, and 30-day postoperative complications.
resultsA total of 18,988 matched patients (9,494 with arthroscopic RCR, 9,494 with open RCR) were included. Arthroscopic RCR cases had significantly longer operative times than open RCR cases (91.82±43.71 minutes vs. 80.93±41.02 minutes, P<0.001) but generated 17.7% higher wRVUs per minute (0.20±0.09 vs. 0.17±0.07, P<0.001) and 36.0% more revenue per case ($485.20±$0.00 vs. $356.77±$7.54, P<0.001). Arthroscopic RCR patients had significantly lower overall 30-day complication rates (1.1% vs. 1.5%, P=0.010), including fewer superficial (0.2% vs. 0.4%, P=0.023) and deep surgical site infections (0.0% vs. 0.2%, P=0.004).
conclusionsArthroscopic RCR is associated with lower short-term complication rates than open RCR, despite requiring longer operative times and more resources. This clinical trade-off suggests that the additional operative demands of arthroscopic surgery are justified by the associated improvements in patient safety, highlighting the value of reduced complications as a key advantage of the arthroscopic approach. Level of evidence: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.