下斜方肌腱转移和关节镜下肩袖撕裂肌推进修复大面积肩袖撕裂的疗效比较:一项系统综述。

IF 1.7 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Jun Lang, Vivek Kumar Morya, Kyu-Cheol Noh
{"title":"下斜方肌腱转移和关节镜下肩袖撕裂肌推进修复大面积肩袖撕裂的疗效比较:一项系统综述。","authors":"Jun Lang, Vivek Kumar Morya, Kyu-Cheol Noh","doi":"10.5397/cise.2025.00171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review evaluates the clinical outcomes of two distinct, arthroscopic techniques for the surgical repair of massive rotator cuff tears; lower trapezius tendon transfer (LTT transfer) and muscle advancement (MA). Eleven studies, involving 433 patients, selected based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, were analyzed. The findings reveal that MA significantly improves functional outcomes, demonstrated by higher Constant-Murley scores (mean difference: 26.26 vs. 18.31, P<0.001), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder scores (14.95 vs. 8.3, P<0.001), acromiohumeral distance (AHD; 1.94 mm vs. 0.40 mm, P<0.001), and greater abduction recovery (46.48° vs. 31.86°, P=0.030). However, VAS (visual analog scale) score was better reduced in the LTT transfer groups i.e.-3.69 vs. -2.33, P<0.001., external rotation improvement (25.67° vs. 7.74°, P<0.001), and demonstrated lower retear rates (11.89% vs. 19.42%, P=0.031). The complication profiles differed between techniques: LTT transfer carried a higher risk of graft rupture (2.64% vs. 0%, P=0.031), while arthroscopic MA was associated with increased postoperative stiffness (2.91% vs. 0%, P=0.011). Based on these results, arthroscopic MA is recommended for younger, active patients with mobile residual tissue to optimize abduction and AHD restoration. In contrast, LTT transfer is better suited for cases involving massive defects requiring dynamic stabilization and external rotation recovery. These findings emphasize the importance of individualized surgical planning that considers tear severity, tissue viability, and patient functional demands. Despite limitations stemming from retrospective study designs and clinical heterogeneity, this review highlights the distinct clinical advantages and appropriate indications for both techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":33981,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcome comparison of lower trapezius tendon transfer and arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair using muscle advancement for massive rotator cuff tear: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Jun Lang, Vivek Kumar Morya, Kyu-Cheol Noh\",\"doi\":\"10.5397/cise.2025.00171\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This systematic review evaluates the clinical outcomes of two distinct, arthroscopic techniques for the surgical repair of massive rotator cuff tears; lower trapezius tendon transfer (LTT transfer) and muscle advancement (MA). Eleven studies, involving 433 patients, selected based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, were analyzed. The findings reveal that MA significantly improves functional outcomes, demonstrated by higher Constant-Murley scores (mean difference: 26.26 vs. 18.31, P<0.001), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder scores (14.95 vs. 8.3, P<0.001), acromiohumeral distance (AHD; 1.94 mm vs. 0.40 mm, P<0.001), and greater abduction recovery (46.48° vs. 31.86°, P=0.030). However, VAS (visual analog scale) score was better reduced in the LTT transfer groups i.e.-3.69 vs. -2.33, P<0.001., external rotation improvement (25.67° vs. 7.74°, P<0.001), and demonstrated lower retear rates (11.89% vs. 19.42%, P=0.031). The complication profiles differed between techniques: LTT transfer carried a higher risk of graft rupture (2.64% vs. 0%, P=0.031), while arthroscopic MA was associated with increased postoperative stiffness (2.91% vs. 0%, P=0.011). Based on these results, arthroscopic MA is recommended for younger, active patients with mobile residual tissue to optimize abduction and AHD restoration. In contrast, LTT transfer is better suited for cases involving massive defects requiring dynamic stabilization and external rotation recovery. These findings emphasize the importance of individualized surgical planning that considers tear severity, tissue viability, and patient functional demands. Despite limitations stemming from retrospective study designs and clinical heterogeneity, this review highlights the distinct clinical advantages and appropriate indications for both techniques.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":33981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2025.00171\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2025.00171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本系统综述评估了两种不同的关节镜手术修复大量肩袖撕裂的临床结果;下斜方肌腱转移(LTT转移)和肌肉推进(MA)。11项研究,涉及433名患者,根据PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南进行分析。研究结果显示,MA可显著改善功能预后,其表现为较高的Constant-Murley评分(平均差异:26.26 vs. 18.31, P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcome comparison of lower trapezius tendon transfer and arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair using muscle advancement for massive rotator cuff tear: a systematic review.

This systematic review evaluates the clinical outcomes of two distinct, arthroscopic techniques for the surgical repair of massive rotator cuff tears; lower trapezius tendon transfer (LTT transfer) and muscle advancement (MA). Eleven studies, involving 433 patients, selected based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, were analyzed. The findings reveal that MA significantly improves functional outcomes, demonstrated by higher Constant-Murley scores (mean difference: 26.26 vs. 18.31, P<0.001), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder scores (14.95 vs. 8.3, P<0.001), acromiohumeral distance (AHD; 1.94 mm vs. 0.40 mm, P<0.001), and greater abduction recovery (46.48° vs. 31.86°, P=0.030). However, VAS (visual analog scale) score was better reduced in the LTT transfer groups i.e.-3.69 vs. -2.33, P<0.001., external rotation improvement (25.67° vs. 7.74°, P<0.001), and demonstrated lower retear rates (11.89% vs. 19.42%, P=0.031). The complication profiles differed between techniques: LTT transfer carried a higher risk of graft rupture (2.64% vs. 0%, P=0.031), while arthroscopic MA was associated with increased postoperative stiffness (2.91% vs. 0%, P=0.011). Based on these results, arthroscopic MA is recommended for younger, active patients with mobile residual tissue to optimize abduction and AHD restoration. In contrast, LTT transfer is better suited for cases involving massive defects requiring dynamic stabilization and external rotation recovery. These findings emphasize the importance of individualized surgical planning that considers tear severity, tissue viability, and patient functional demands. Despite limitations stemming from retrospective study designs and clinical heterogeneity, this review highlights the distinct clinical advantages and appropriate indications for both techniques.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信