Massive posterosuperior cuff tears (mRCT) retracted to the glenoid are surgically challenging and often associated with high retear rates. Primary repair is a less-favourable option and other salvage procedures such as SCR and tendon transfers are used. This study presents clinical and radiological outcomes of muscle advancement technique for repair of mRCT.

Sixty-one patients (mean age 57±6, 77% males and 23% females) (66 shoulders) underwent all-arthroscopic rotator cuff repair that included supraspinatus and infraspinatus subperiosteal dissection off scapular bony fossae, lateral advancement of tendon laminae, and tension-free double-layer Lasso Loop repair to footprint.

Pre-and post-operative range of motion (ROM), cuff strength, VAS, Constant, ASES, and UCLA scores were assessed. Radiologic assessment included modified Patte and Goutallier classifications. All patients had MRI at 6 months to evaluate healing and integrity of repair was assessed using Sugaya classification with Sugaya 4 and 5 considered retears.

Advanced fatty degeneration (Goutallier 3-4) was present in 44% and 20% of supraspinatus and infraspinatus. Tendon retraction was to the level of or medial to glenoid in 22%, and just lateral in 66%. 50.8% mRCT extended to teres minor. Subscapularis was partially torn (Lafosse 1-3) in 46% and completely torn (Lafosse 4-5) in 20%.

At mean follow-up (52.4 weeks), a significant increase in ROM, Relative Cuff Strength (from 57% to 90% compared to contralateral side), VAS (from 4 ±2.5 to 1±1.7), Constant (50±17.8 to 74 ±13.0), ASES (52 ±17.5 to 87 ±14.9), and UCLA (16± 4.9 to 30 ±4.9) scores were noted. There were six retears (10%), one failure due to P. acnes infection. 93% returned to pre-injury work and 89% of cases returned to pre-injury sport. Satisfaction rate was 96%.

Muscle advancement technique for mRCT is a viable option with low retear rates, restoration of ROM, strength, and excellent functional outcomes.

Complications such as implant loosening, infection, periprosthetic fracture or instability may lead to revision arthroplasty procedures. There is limited literature comparing single-stage and two-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and cost benefit between single-stage and two-stage revision procedures.

Thirty-one revision procedures (mean age 72+/-7, 15 males and 16 females) performed between 2016 and 2021 were included (27 revision RSA, 2 revision TSA, 2 failed ORIFs). Two-stage procedures were carried out 4-6 weeks apart. Single-stage procedures included debridement, implant removal and washout, followed by re-prep, re-drape and reconstruction with new instrumentations. Clinical parameters including length of stay, VAS, patient satisfaction was recorded preoperatively and at mean 12-months follow up. Cost benefit analysis were performed.

Seven revisions were two-stage procedures and 24 were single-stage procedures. There were 5 infections in the two-stage group vs 14 in the single-stage group. We noted two cases of unstable RSA and 8 other causes for single-stage revision. Majority of the revisions were complex procedures requiring significant glenoid and/or humeral allografts and tendon transfers to compensate for soft tissue loss. No custom implants were used in our series.

Hospital stay was reduced from 41+/-29 days for 2-stage procedures to 16+/-13 days for single-stage (p<0.05). VAS improved from 9+/-1 to 2+/-4 for two-stage procedures and from 5+/-3 to 1+/-2 for single-stages. The average total cost of hospital and patient was reduced by two-thirds. Patient satisfaction in the single-stage group was 43% which was comparable to the two-stage group.

All infections were successfully treated with no recurrence of infection in our cohort of 31 patients. There was no instability postoperatively. 3 patients had postoperative neural symptoms which resolved within 6 months.

Single-stage procedures for revision shoulder arthroplasty significantly decrease hospital stay, improve patients’ satisfaction, and reduced surgical costs.