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 (Preferr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinics in shoulder and elbow pp. 504 - 516
Main Authors: Lang, Jun, Morya, Vivek Kumar, Noh, Kyu-Cheol
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Korea (South) 대한견주관절학회 11.09.2025
Subjects:
정형외과학
Rotator cuff tear
Arthroscopic muscle advancement
Shoulder joint
Tendon transfer
Arthroscopy
Lower trapezius
ISSN:2288-8721, 2383-8337, 2288-8721
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
http://www.cisejournal.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.5397/cise.2025.00171
ISSN:2288-8721
2383-8337
2288-8721
DOI:10.5397/cise.2025.00171