ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2024
Latissimus dorsi and teres major transfer in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reverse shoulder arthroplasty combined with anterior latissimus dorsi and teres major transfer for restoration of internal rotation in cuff tear arthropathy: a technical note.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
- The mid-term outcomes on reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with isolated latissimus dorsi transfer in patients with isolated external rotation lag without pseudoparalysis: an average follow-up of 5 years.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Mid-term clinical and functional outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty with latissimus dorsi transfer.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This paper aims to conduct a systematic review of the current literature to evaluate the clinical outcomes of concurrent latissimus dorsi and teres major (LD/TM) tendon transfer in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), and to compare that to isolated RSA. Methods: A comprehensive search on PubMeb, Web of Science, Embase and CINAHL was performed from inception up to January 20, 2023, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. Cohort studies, case-control studies, randomized controlled trials and case series that were written in English, which involved patients who underwent RSA with LD/TM transfer were included. Quality of studies was appraised using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. Systematic review of Constant-Murley Score (CMS) and range of movement (ROM) was conducted. Results: Eight studies with a total of 265 patients were included. The average mean follow-up time was 42.5 months, with a range of 6 months to 136 months. Of the studies that reported outcomes of RSA with LD/TM transfer, five reported the CMS, five reported external rotation (ER) ROM and six reported forward flexion ROM. Comparing postoperative to preoperative scores, there was an improvement above the minimal clinically important difference for CMS (mean difference (MD) range = 22.40 to 41.80), ER (MD range = 29° to 36°) and forward flexion (MD range = 50° to 75°). Three studies that compared postoperative ER between RSA with and without LD/TM reported no significant difference. Conclusion: RSA with LD/TM transfer has good clinical outcomes postoperatively, but there is insufficient comparative data to suggest that it is superior or inferior to an isolated RSA.
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.