We have located links that may give you full text access.
Improved yet Varied Clinical Outcomes Observed With Comparison of Arthroscopic Superior Capsular Reconstruction Versus Arthroscopy-Assisted Lower Trapezius Transfer for Patients With Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears.
Arthroscopy 2023 May 3
PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) and arthroscopy-assisted lower trapezius tendon transfer (LTT) for posterosuperior irreparable rotator cuff tears (IRCTs).
METHODS: Over an almost 6-year period (October 2015 to March 2021), all patients who underwent IRCT surgery with a minimum 12-month follow-up period were identified. For patients with a substantial active external rotation (ER) deficit or lag sign, LTT was preferentially selected. Patient-reported outcome scores included the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, strength score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score.
RESULTS: We included 32 SCR patients and 72 LTT patients. Preoperatively, LTT patients had more advanced teres minor fatty infiltration (0.3 vs 1.1, P = .009), a higher global fatty infiltration index (1.5 vs 1.9, P = .035), and a higher presence of the ER lag sign (15.6% vs 48.6%, P < .001). At a mean follow-up of 2.9 ± 1.3 years (range, 1.0-6.3 years), no differences in patient-reported outcome scores were observed. Postoperatively, SCR patients had a lower VAS score (0.3 vs 1.1, P = .017), higher forward elevation (FE) (156° vs 143°, P = .004), and higher FE strength (4.8 vs 4.5, P = .005) and showed greater improvements in the VAS score (6.8 vs 5.1, P = .009), FE (56° vs 31°, P = .004), and FE strength (1.0 vs 0.4, P < .001). LTT patients showed greater improvement in ER (17° vs 29°, P = .026). There was no statistically significant between-cohort difference in complication rate (9.4% vs 12.5%, P = .645) or reoperation rate (3.1% vs 10%, P = .231).
CONCLUSIONS: With adequate selection criteria, both SCR and LTT provided improved clinical outcomes for posterosuperior IRCTs. Additionally, SCR led to better pain relief and restoration of FE whereas LTT provided more reliable improvement in ER.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, treatment study with retrospective cohort comparison.
METHODS: Over an almost 6-year period (October 2015 to March 2021), all patients who underwent IRCT surgery with a minimum 12-month follow-up period were identified. For patients with a substantial active external rotation (ER) deficit or lag sign, LTT was preferentially selected. Patient-reported outcome scores included the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, strength score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score.
RESULTS: We included 32 SCR patients and 72 LTT patients. Preoperatively, LTT patients had more advanced teres minor fatty infiltration (0.3 vs 1.1, P = .009), a higher global fatty infiltration index (1.5 vs 1.9, P = .035), and a higher presence of the ER lag sign (15.6% vs 48.6%, P < .001). At a mean follow-up of 2.9 ± 1.3 years (range, 1.0-6.3 years), no differences in patient-reported outcome scores were observed. Postoperatively, SCR patients had a lower VAS score (0.3 vs 1.1, P = .017), higher forward elevation (FE) (156° vs 143°, P = .004), and higher FE strength (4.8 vs 4.5, P = .005) and showed greater improvements in the VAS score (6.8 vs 5.1, P = .009), FE (56° vs 31°, P = .004), and FE strength (1.0 vs 0.4, P < .001). LTT patients showed greater improvement in ER (17° vs 29°, P = .026). There was no statistically significant between-cohort difference in complication rate (9.4% vs 12.5%, P = .645) or reoperation rate (3.1% vs 10%, P = .231).
CONCLUSIONS: With adequate selection criteria, both SCR and LTT provided improved clinical outcomes for posterosuperior IRCTs. Additionally, SCR led to better pain relief and restoration of FE whereas LTT provided more reliable improvement in ER.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, treatment study with retrospective cohort comparison.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app