Introduction. Treatment strategies for irreparable Massive Rotator Cuff Tears (MRCTs) are debatable, especially for younger, active patients. Superior Capsular Reconstruction (SCR) acts as a static stabilizer, while Lower Trapezius Transfer (LTT) serves as a dynamic stabilizer. This study compares the biomechanical effectiveness of SCR and LTT, hypothesizing that their combination will enhance shoulder kinematics. Methods. Eight human shoulders from donors aged 55-75 (mean = 63.75 years), balanced for gender, averaging 219.5 lbs, were used. Rotator cuff and deltoid tendons were connected to force sensors through a pulley system, with the deltoid linked to a servohydraulic motor for dynamic force measurement. Results. From intact to MRCT, deltoid force was reduced by 28% (p = 0.023). LTT increased deltoid force by 27.25 (p = 0.166). SCR decreased deltoid force by 34% (p = 0.208). Combining LTT with SCR increased deltoid force by 32.57% compared to SCR (p = 0.023) and decreased it by 13.6% compared to LTT alone (p = 0.017). Combined LTT and SCR reduced deltoid force by 20.9% from the control (p = 0.001). Subacromial contact pressure rose by 15% in MRCT over intact, but LTT decreased it by 7.6%, achieving nearly 50% correction. SCR increased subacromial space volume, raising pressure by 6.5%. The humeral head translation (HHT) increases with MRCT, reaching 3.33 mm (SD = 0.95) at 0 degrees, compared to 2.24 mm (SD = 0.78) in the intact. LTT and the combined LTT + SCR significantly reduce HHT, with combined LTT + SCR achieving HHT of 2.24 mm (SD = 0.63) at 0 degrees, comparable to the control. Conclusion. Notable changes in deltoid force were observed. LTT outperformed the combined SCR and LTT in reducing deltoid force and subacromial peak pressure. Both SCR and LTT corrected HTT, with LTT being more effective. However, combining SCR and LTT optimally corrected HHT

Introduction

Supraspinatus and infraspinatus tears (Massive Rotator Cuff Tear- MRCT) cause compensatory activation of the teres minor (TM) and subscapularis (SubS) to maintain humeral head alignment. This study measures force changes in TM and SubS using a dynamic shoulder testing setup. We hypothesize that combining superior capsule reconstruction (SCR) and lower trapezius tendon (LTT) transfer will correct rotator cuff forces.

Background:

The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical effects of the trapezius transfer and the latissimus dorsi transfer in a cadaveric model of a massive posterosuperior rotator cuff tear.

Rotator cuff tears are the most common cause of shoulder disability, affecting 10% of the population under 60 and 40% of those aged 70 and above. Massive irreparable rotator cuff tears account for 30% of all tears and their management continues to be an orthopaedic challenge. Traditional surgical techniques, that is, tendon transfers are performed to restore shoulder motion, however, they result in varying outcomes of stability and complications. Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) is a novel technique that has shown promise in restoring shoulder function, albeit in limited studies. To date, there has been no biomechanical comparison between these techniques. This study aims to compare three surgical techniques (SCR, latissimus dorsi tendon transfer and lower trapezius tendon transfer) for irreparable rotator cuff tears with respect to intact cuff control using a clinically relevant biomechanical outcome of rotational motion. Eight fresh-frozen shoulder specimens with intact rotator cuffs were tested. After dissection of subcutaneous tissue and muscles, each specimen was mounted on a custom shoulder testing apparatus and physiologic loads were applied using a pulley setup. Under 2.2 Nm torque loading maximum internal and external rotation was measured at 0 and 60 degrees of glenohumeral abduction. Repeat testing was conducted after the creation of the cuff tear and subsequent to the three repair techniques. Repeated measures analysis with paired t-test comparisons using Sidak correction was performed to compare the rotational range of motion following each repair technique with respect to each specimen's intact control. P-values of 0.05 were considered significant. At 0° abduction, internal rotation increased after the tear (intact: 39.6 ± 13.6° vs. tear: 80.5 ± 47.7°, p=0.019). Internal rotation was higher following SCR (52.7 ± 12.9°, intact - SCR 95% CI: −25.28°,-0.95°, p=0.034), trapezius transfer (74.2 ± 25.3°, intact – trapezius transfer: 95% CI: −71.1°, 1.81°, p=0.064), and latissimus transfer (83.5 ± 52.1°, intact – latissimus transfer: 95% CI: −118.3°, 30.5°, p=0.400) than in intact controls. However, internal rotation post SCR yielded the narrowest estimate range close to intact controls. At 60° abduction, internal rotation increased after the tear (intact: 38.7 ± 14.4° vs. tear: 49.5 ± 13°, p=0.005). Internal rotation post SCR did not differ significantly from intact controls (SCR: 49.3 ± 10.1°, intact – SCR: 95% CI: −28°, 6.91°, p=0.38). Trapezius transfer showed a trend toward significantly higher internal rotation (65.7 ± 21.1°, intact – trapezius transfer: 95% CI: −55.7°, 1.7°, p=0.067), while latissimus transfer yielded widely variable rotation angle (65.7 ± 38°, intact – latissimus transfer: 95% CI: −85.9°, 31.9°, p=0.68). There were no significant differences in external rotation for any technique at 0° or 60° abduction. Preliminary evaluation in this cadaveric biomechanical study provides positive evidence in support of use of SCR as a less morbid surgical option than tendon transfers. The cadaveric nature of this study limits the understanding of the motion to post-operative timepoint and the results herein are relevant for otherwise normal shoulders only. Further clinical evaluation is warranted to understand the long-term outcomes related to shoulder function and stability post SCR