ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
A survey of surgical technique preferences for lower trapezius tendon transfer for functionally irreparable rotator cuff tears.
Article in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lower trapezius tendon transfer (LTT) has emerged as a promising surgical option for addressing deficits after functionally irreparable rotator cuff tears; however, there is limited consensus regarding the optimal technique used for this procedure. Methods: An anonymous 19-item survey was distributed to practicing shoulder and sports medicine surgeons. Questions covered demographics and preferences for LTT, such as indications, surgical technique, and postoperative rehabilitation protocols. Results: The survey had 39 total respondents, with 25 completing the entire survey and reporting experience with LTT in clinical practice. Most were self-taught (72%) and perform LTT with arthroscopic assistance (96%) in the beach chair position (80%), using an Achilles tendon allograft (95%) fixed initially to the tuberosity (100%) using a double-row anchor technique (80%). Significant variability was seen in respondents' contraindications, use of local tissue, and rehabilitation protocols. Conclusion: Substantial variability in technique preferences exists in modern clinical practice, which should be considered when interpreting results across different case series, as there are clearly different indications, surgical techniques, and rehabilitation approaches from surgeon to surgeon. Variability should be recognized as a positive sign of innovation in a nascent procedure, where further research is needed to identify best practices that can optimize patient outcomes.
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.