ReviewClinics in shoulder and elbow2025
Outcome comparison of lower trapezius tendon transfer and arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair using muscle advancement for massive rotator cuff tear: a systematic review.
Review in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review evaluates the clinical outcomes of two distinct, arthroscopic techniques for the surgical repair of massive rotator cuff tears; lower trapezius tendon (LTT) transfer and muscle advancement (MA).
methodsEleven studies, involving 433 patients, selected based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, were analyzed.
resultsMA 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 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, visual analog scale score was better reduced in the LTT transfer groups (-3.69 vs. -2.33, P<0.001), with greater external rotation improvement (25.67° vs. 7.74°, P<0.001) and 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).
conclusionsArthroscopic 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.
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.