We compared the clinical and quality of life related outcome of rotator cuff repair performed using either a mini-open or an arthroscopic technique for rotator cuff tears of less than 3 cm. The records of 64 patients who underwent rotator cuff repair between September 2003 and September 2005 were evaluated. Thirty-two patients underwent a mini-open rotator cuff repair, and 32 patients underwent an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The mean follow-up period was 31 months in the mini-open group and 30.6 months in the arthroscopic group (P > 0.05). The UCLA rating system, range of motion examination and the self-administered SF-36 used for postoperative evaluation showed a statistically significant improvement from the preoperative to the final score for both groups (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference in the total UCLA scores was found when comparing the two repair techniques (P > 0.05). This study suggests that there is no difference in terms of subjective and objective outcomes between the two surgical procedures studied if patients have rotator cuff tears of less than 3 cm.