Kany Jean, Alfredo Miranda Luis, Duerinckx Quentin, Leoncio Temoche Luis, van Rooij Floris, Grimberg Jean
Clinique De l'Union, Ramsay Santé, Boulevard De Ratalens, Saint Jean, France.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital Cima Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico.
Am J Sports Med. 2025 May;53(6):1299-1306. doi: 10.1177/03635465251330882. Epub 2025 Apr 18.
Although a recent systematic review found that latissimus dorsi tendon transfer (LDTT) granted comparable outcomes in shoulders with massive rotator cuff tears (mRCTs) versus those with failed rotator cuff repair (RCR), some studies found inferior outcomes after failed RCR.
To compare the clinical and functional outcomes, as well as complication rates, of patients who underwent LDTT for the treatment of mRCTs or failed RCR.
Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
The authors retrieved the records of a consecutive series of 258 patients (n = 150, arthroscopically assisted; n = 108, all-arthroscopic) who underwent LDTT by the same senior surgeon between 2014 and 2021. A total of 136 patients underwent LDTT for irreparable posterosuperior mRCTs without previous RCR, whereas 122 underwent LDTT for failed RCR. All intra- and postoperative complications were noted, as well as whether patients required conversion to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. At a minimum follow-up of 24 months, an independent observer collected the range of motion and clinical scores including the Constant score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), Simple Shoulder Test, Activities of Daily Living requiring Active External Rotation (ADLER) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and pain on visual analog scale (VAS).
At a minimum follow-up of 2 years after LDTT, no significant differences were noted between shoulders treated for mRCTs versus failed RCR in terms of rates of conversion to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (3% vs 3%, respectively), LDTT tear (8% vs 10%), or other complications (10% vs 11%). Shoulders treated for mRCTs had significantly better outcomes than those treated for failed RCR, in terms of ASES score (75.8 ± 19.5 vs 65.6 ± 24.2, respectively; = .002), ADLER score (26.3 ± 5.7 vs 24.8 ± 6.4; = .003), SSV (72.3 ± 19.8 vs 63.6 ± 24.0; = .004), and pain on VAS (1.8 ± 2.0 vs 2.7 ± 2.7; = .018) but not in terms of Constant score (69.2 ± 13.4 vs 66.4 ± 16.3, = .520) and range of motion ( = .360-.700). Multivariable analysis confirmed that ASES score was worse for shoulders with previous RCR (β, -9.90; 95% CI, -15.94 to 3.86; = .001) and that Constant score was better for men (β, 3.91; 95% CI, -0.06 to 7.88; = .044).
At a minimum follow-up of 24 months, LDTT granted better outcomes for the treatment of mRCTs than of failed RCR, notably in terms of activity and pain.
尽管最近一项系统评价发现,与肩袖修复失败(RCR)的患者相比,背阔肌肌腱转移术(LDTT)在治疗巨大肩袖撕裂(mRCT)的患者中能取得相当的疗效,但一些研究发现RCR失败后的疗效较差。
比较接受LDTT治疗mRCT或RCR失败的患者的临床和功能结局以及并发症发生率。
病例系列;证据等级,4级。
作者检索了2014年至2021年间由同一位资深外科医生连续进行LDTT治疗的258例患者的记录(n = 150,关节镜辅助;n = 108,全关节镜)。共有136例患者因不可修复的后上mRCT且未接受过RCR而接受LDTT治疗,而122例患者因RCR失败而接受LDTT治疗。记录所有术中及术后并发症,以及患者是否需要转为反式肩关节置换术。在至少24个月的随访中,由一名独立观察者收集活动范围和临床评分,包括Constant评分、主观肩关节值(SSV)、简单肩关节试验、需要主动外旋的日常生活活动(ADLER)评分、美国肩肘外科医师(ASES)评分以及视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分。
在LDTT后至少2年的随访中,治疗mRCT的肩部与RCR失败的肩部在转为反式肩关节置换术的发生率(分别为3%对3%)、LDTT撕裂(8%对10%)或其他并发症(10%对11%)方面未发现显著差异。在ASES评分(分别为75.8±19.5对65.6±24.2;P = 0.002)、ADLER评分(26.3±5.7对24.8±6.4;P = 0.003)、SSV(72.3±19.8对63.6±24.0;P = 0.004)和VAS疼痛评分(1.8±2.0对2.7±2.7;P = 0.018)方面,治疗mRCT的肩部的结局明显优于RCR失败的肩部,但在Constant评分(69.2±13.4对66.4±16.3,P = 0.520)和活动范围(P = 0.360 - 0.700)方面无差异。多变量分析证实,既往有RCR的肩部的ASES评分较差(β,-9.90;95%可信区间,-15.94至-3.86;P = 0.001),男性的Constant评分较好(β,3.91;95%可信区间,0.06至7.88;P = 0.044)。
在至少24个月的随访中,LDTT治疗mRCT的结局优于RCR失败的患者,尤其是在活动和疼痛方面。