Latest / Deep Dive Ortho — Orthopaedic Surgery, AI & Digital Health Podcast. / Irreparable rotator cuff tears

Transcript

Irreparable rotator cuff tears · Deep Dive Ortho — Orthopaedic Surgery, AI & Digital Health Podcast.

0:00
Welcome back to The Deep Dive. Today we're plunging
0:03
into, well, one of orthopedic surgery's really
0:06
quite formidable challenges, the irreparable
0:08
rotator cuff tear. This isn't your average tear,
0:11
is it? It's a complex problem that really pushes
0:15
the boundaries of surgical ingenuity and, of
0:17
course, patient care. That's absolutely right,
0:20
yes. When we talk about an irreparable tear,
0:22
we're using a, well, a specific clinical definition.
0:25
It's based on factors that go beyond just the
0:27
size of the tear itself, although... you know,
0:29
size is often part of it. Right. The literature
0:31
really points to some key characteristics that
0:34
make a torn rotator cuff truly irreparable. OK,
0:37
let's unpack that then. What exactly distinguishes
0:40
an irreparable tear from, say, just a massive
0:43
tear that, you know, might still be potentially
0:45
repairable? That's a very good question. Whilst
0:48
many irreparable tears are massive, involving
0:51
more than one or two tendons, the term irreparable
0:53
specifically refers to factors that make a successful,
0:56
durable surgical repair. Right. Oh, unlikely.
0:58
Or even impossible. The main culprits here are,
1:02
firstly, the degree of retraction. That's how
1:05
far the torn tendon has pulled back from its
1:07
attachment point. Often it's so severe you simply
1:09
cannot physically mobilize the tissue back to
1:12
the bone without putting it under excessive tension.
1:15
Too tight? Exactly. And perhaps even more critically,
1:19
it's about the quality of the muscle tissue itself.
1:22
Muscle quality? How does that play a role? We're
1:24
talking about muscle impairment. Specifically,
1:27
muscle atrophy, where the muscle bulk actually
1:29
shrinks, and fatty infiltration. That's where
1:33
fat cells start replacing healthy muscle fibers.
1:37
This change in the tissue composition means the
1:39
muscle is just less functional. And even if you
1:42
could somehow reattach the tendon, the muscle
1:44
unit itself wouldn't generate enough force. Plus,
1:47
that compromised tissue is much less likely to
1:49
heal properly to the bone. So it's not just the
1:52
size of the hole or how far it's pulled back,
1:54
but what's actually happened to the muscle that's
1:57
connected to that tendon? Precisely, yes. Think
2:00
of it like trying to sew, I don't know, frayed,
2:01
brittle fabric back together. It's just not going
2:04
to hold the tension well, is it? The sources
2:05
you've gathered really highlight this. For poster
2:08
superior tears, Those involving the supraspinatus
2:12
and maybe the infraspinatus tendons, the Gerber
2:15
criteria are often mentioned. They describe a
2:18
scenario where even if you tried to mobilize
2:21
the torn tendon, you physically cannot get it
2:25
close enough to the bone insertion site to fix
2:27
it without undue tension when the arm is brought
2:30
down to, say, 60 degrees of abduction or less.
2:33
That tells you straight away the tendon is severely
2:36
retracted and probably quite fibrotic, quite
2:38
stiff. That paints a really vivid picture actually
2:41
of how contracted and, well, immobile the tissue
2:45
can become. And are there specific clinical signs
2:48
then, things you look for that... point towards
2:50
this rather grim prognosis. Yes, absolutely.
2:54
There are several sort of red flags that surgeons
2:56
look for, both from the clinical examination
2:58
and from imaging, like x -rays and MRI scans.
3:01
The long duration of symptoms is quite common,
3:03
often six months or even longer. Significant
3:05
weakness is another key sign, particularly weakness
3:07
in external rotation, that's the ability to rotate
3:09
your arm away from your body. Right, turning
3:11
outwards. Yes, because that function is heavily
3:14
reliant on those specific muscles. the supraspinatus
3:17
and infraspinatus, which are often the ones torn.
3:20
And what about on the scans? What shows up there?
3:22
Well, on standard x -rays, a really key sign
3:26
is a reduced acromiohumeral distance. That's
3:29
the space between the top of the humerus, the
3:32
ball part of the joint, and the underside of
3:34
the acromion bone above it. Okay. If that space
3:37
is less than about six millimeters, it's a strong
3:40
indicator that the humeral head has started to
3:42
migrate upwards because the torn cuff is no longer
3:45
doing its job of holding it centered in the joint
3:47
socket. So the ball is riding high. Exactly.
3:50
Then MRI is crucial. It helps assess the tear
3:53
itself, the size and retraction, but also the
3:55
muscle quality we talked about. The PAT staging
3:57
system describes the degree of tendon retraction.
4:00
Stage three, for instance, means the tendon is
4:02
pulled all the way back to the rim of the socket,
4:04
the glenoid rim. It's essentially... completely
4:07
off the humeral head. Wow, stage 3 is totally
4:09
disconnected then. Pretty much, yes. And then
4:11
the MRI also clearly shows the fatty infiltration
4:15
within the muscle. We use the Guttalli classification
4:17
to grade that, and studies consistently show
4:20
that fatty infiltration exceeding 50 % of the
4:23
Guttalli grade 3 or 4 is a very strong predictor
4:27
that any attempt at a direct repair is, well,
4:30
likely doomed to fail. The healing potential
4:33
and muscle function are just too poor. Okay,
4:35
that gives us a really clear definition of what
4:38
we're up against here. It's not just a big hole,
4:40
is it? It's retracted, poor quality tissue, and
4:44
often a shoulder joint that's already started
4:46
to shift upward structurally. Precisely. So our
4:49
mission for this deep dive then is to take the
4:51
material you've provided and really explore the
4:53
whole landscape of solutions for these very challenging
4:56
cases. Exactly. And the literature offers a surprisingly
4:59
wide spectrum of treatment strategies. It ranges
5:02
from non -surgical approaches right through to
5:04
highly complex surgical reconstructions and even
5:07
joint replacement surgery. So we'll delve into
5:09
each one, try to understand the rationale behind
5:11
it, look at the evidence supporting it, and crucially
5:15
figure out who might be the right candidate for
5:18
which particular procedure. Fantastic. Let's
5:21
really dive into understanding why these are
5:23
so difficult to treat surgically first. You mentioned
5:26
direct repair isn't usually an option. Why is
5:29
that, beyond the factors we've just covered?
5:32
Well, even for massive tears that maybe don't
5:36
quite meet the strict definition of irreparable
5:38
but are still very large, the mechanical environment
5:41
and the biological healing potential are already
5:44
quite compromised. The retire rates after surgery
5:48
for these massive repairs are are frankly notoriously
5:51
high in the literature. They're often cited somewhere
5:54
between 40 % and in some studies up to 91%. 91%,
5:58
wow. Yes, sobering figure. It means that even
6:00
if a surgeon can technically manage to pull the
6:02
tissues together and stitch them down, the chances
6:05
of that repair breaking down again over time
6:07
are really quite significant. Now, for truly
6:11
irreparable tears with that severe retraction
6:13
and poor muscle quality we talked about, the
6:16
chance of a successful functional repair drops
6:19
even lower. potentially right up towards that
6:22
higher end of the range. Attempting a direct
6:25
repair in that scenario can sometimes even make
6:27
things worse, more pain, limited motion, or it
6:30
just fails very quickly. That 91 % figure is
6:33
really stark, isn't it? It certainly underscores
6:36
the need for alternative approaches. And it also
6:39
highlights something the sources point out, that
6:40
the goal isn't always achieving anatomical perfection.
6:44
Absolutely not. For many patients with irreparable
6:46
tears, particularly perhaps older individuals
6:49
or those who don't need to perform strenuous
6:51
overhead activities, the primary goals of treatment
6:53
tend to shift. We're often focused much more
6:56
on improving pain, restoring enough function
6:58
for everyday activities, activities of daily
7:00
living, and just generally enhancing their overall
7:03
quality of life. It becomes less about restoring
7:05
the shoulder to how it was before the injury
7:07
or achieving some anatomical ideal and more about
7:10
making it a comfortable and usable limb again.
7:12
So managing expectations is absolutely key here.
7:16
Given those challenges with direct repair, what's
7:19
typically the first avenue that's explored? Well,
7:22
as with many orthopedic conditions, really, the
7:25
initial management is often conservative, non
7:27
-operative, particularly for patients who aren't
7:29
aiming for high level athletic performance or
7:32
perhaps those who have significant other health
7:35
issues, comorbidities. Right. The literature
7:37
actually shows that even quite substantial tiers,
7:40
including some classified as massive, can sometimes
7:43
be managed non -operatively with quite satisfactory
7:46
results, at least for a significant period. And
7:48
what does that non -operative approach look like
7:50
in practice? It's usually a multi -pronged strategy.
7:53
Physiotherapy is absolutely the cornerstone,
7:56
a structured rehabilitation program tailored
7:58
specifically to the patient's needs. Okay. This
8:01
focuses on strengthening the remaining intact
8:03
rotator cuff muscles, improving the function
8:06
of compensatory muscles like the deltoid and
8:08
the scapular stabilizers around the shoulder
8:10
blade, trying to regain range of motion, and
8:13
also correcting posture that might be contributing
8:15
to impingement problems. So essentially training
8:17
the body to work around the problem. Exactly
8:19
that, yes. Alongside the therapy, medical management
8:22
is important too. This includes things like oral
8:25
pain relief and anti -inflammatory medications
8:28
just to manage the symptoms day -to -day. Injections
8:31
into the subacromial space are also frequently
8:34
used. Most commonly, that's corticosteroids to
8:37
reduce inflammation and hopefully pain. Some
8:40
sources also mention using hyaluronic acid or
8:43
perhaps platelet -rich plasma, PRP, although
8:46
I'd say the evidence for their long -term benefit,
8:48
specifically in irreparable tears, is still evolving.
8:53
Right. And does this conservative approach, does
8:56
it genuinely make a difference? You mentioned
8:58
satisfactory results earlier. Oh, absolutely
9:00
can, yes. There are studies providing good evidence
9:03
for this. For instance, Ainsworth and colleagues
9:05
reported significant improvements in patient
9:07
-reported outcome scores. Things like the Oxford
9:09
Shoulder score and the SF -36 Quality of Life
9:13
score after just a 12 -week multimodal physiotherapy
9:16
program in patients who had massive tears. That's
9:18
quite notable progress just from dedicated physio,
9:21
isn't it? It is, yes. And then there's the really
9:23
striking Levy study. They looked specifically
9:26
at patients with irreparable rotator cuff tears,
9:29
who also had pseudo paralysis. That's the inability
9:32
to actively lift the arm above about 90 degrees.
9:36
OK. They implemented a very targeted training
9:38
program focusing on the anterior deltoid muscle,
9:42
the muscle at the front of the shoulder. And
9:44
the results were quite dramatic. Their mean constant
9:48
scores. which measure function, went from a severely
9:51
disabled level of about 26 up to 63, which represents
9:55
a much more functional level. And perhaps even
9:58
more impressively, their average active forward
10:00
flexion lifting the arm forwards, improved from
10:03
a mere 40 degrees to an average of 160 degrees.
10:07
So going from barely being able to lift your
10:09
arm to nearly full elevation just by training
10:11
the deltoid muscle, that's a really powerful
10:13
demonstration of compensation, isn't it? It truly
10:15
is. It really highlights the importance of assessing
10:17
and then optimizing the function of the deltoid
10:19
and the other muscles surrounding the shoulder
10:21
joint when the rotator cuff itself is deficient.
10:23
It shows that even if the underlying structural
10:25
tear doesn't actually change, the functional
10:28
capacity can be significantly improved through
10:31
dedicated rehabilitation. As some studies, like
10:35
one by Zheng et al, observed, some patients can
10:37
maintain pretty satisfactory function non -operatively
10:40
for years, even whilst the pathology, the tear
10:43
itself, might be progressing structurally on
10:46
scans. Okay, so conservative management, especially
10:48
that focused rehab, is a really critical first
10:51
step and can yield some impressive functional
10:53
gains. But what happens if conservative treatment
10:56
just isn't sufficient, particularly for persistent
10:59
pain? Yes, when pain remains a significant issue
11:02
despite those conservative efforts, the next
11:04
step often involves arthroscopic procedures.
11:07
keyhole surgery. Right. These are typically less
11:10
extensive than open surgery and importantly,
11:12
they're primarily aimed at providing pain relief
11:14
rather than restoring the anatomical integrity
11:17
of the torn cuff. So treating the symptoms more
11:19
directly then? Precisely. The pain in many of
11:22
these massive and irreparable tears is significantly
11:25
driven by inflammation within the subacromial
11:28
bursa. That's the fluid -filled sac that normally
11:31
cushions the rotator cuff tendons underneath
11:33
the acromion bone. This bursa can become really
11:36
thickened and inflamed, and it contains pro -inflammatory
11:39
cytokines, chemicals that cause pain. Also, the
11:42
ragged edges of the torn tendons themselves can
11:45
be a source of pain and mechanical irritation
11:48
as the shoulder moves. So what does the arthroscopic
11:51
procedure actually involve doing? Well, the core
11:54
procedure is usually a thorough brosectomy. That
11:56
means removing the inflamed chromial buria arthroscopically.
12:00
This is often combined with debridement, which
12:03
essentially means trimming or smoothing out the
12:05
ragged edges of the torn tendon ends. This can
12:08
help alleviate that mechanical irritation and
12:10
remove the inflamed tissue, thereby reducing
12:12
pain. And does this approach have good evidence
12:14
behind it for pain relief? Yes. Studies do support
12:18
its effectiveness, particularly in, say, older
12:20
or less active patients. The Liam study, for
12:23
example, showed significant improvements in AC
12:26
scores, that's the American shoulder and elbow
12:28
surgeon score, and also a substantial reduction
12:31
in pain scores following arthroscopic debridement
12:34
and persectomy. So patients felt better. Yes,
12:36
they reported much less pain, often dropping
12:39
several points on a standard visual analog scale
12:42
for pain. The goal here really is to provide
12:45
that pain relief whilst preserving any remaining
12:48
functional muscle tissue. like perhaps parts
12:50
of the posterior cuff or, crucially, the deltoid
12:53
muscle, which is so important for overall shoulder
12:55
function when the cuff is deficient. That makes
12:58
a lot of sense, a less invasive way to directly
13:00
address a major source of the pain. But you mentioned
13:03
earlier that this alone doesn't slow down the
13:05
progression of osteoarthritis. That's a really
13:07
key limitation, yes, and something the sources
13:09
are quite clear about. Whilst debridement definitely
13:13
helps with pain by managing the inflamed bursa
13:15
and the torn edges, it doesn't alter the fundamental
13:18
biomechanics of the shoulder joint. It doesn't
13:21
stop that potential superior humeral head migration
13:24
and the increased joint wear that can happen
13:26
over time. So it treats a symptom. Exactly. It
13:30
addresses a symptom, but not necessarily the
13:32
underlying mechanical issue that might be driving
13:34
future arthritis development. Now, alongside
13:37
debridement, other procedures are often performed
13:40
arthroscopically at the same time as adjuncts.
13:43
What kind of adjuncts are we talking about? A
13:45
very common one is addressing the long head of
13:47
the biceps tendon. This might involve a tenotomy,
13:50
which is cutting the tendon, or a tenodesis,
13:53
which is cutting and then reattaching it elsewhere.
13:55
Okay. The long head of the biceps tendon runs
13:57
right through the shoulder joint, and it often
13:58
becomes degenerative, frayed, or even partially
14:01
torn in the setting of massive rotator cuff tears.
14:04
And this itself can be a significant source of
14:06
anterior shoulder pain, pain at the front. So
14:09
it's another source of damaged tissue causing
14:11
pain within the joint. Exactly. Surgeons notice
14:14
clinically that some patients who experienced
14:16
a spontaneous rupture of their biceps tendon
14:19
actually reported a paradoxical improvement in
14:21
their overall shoulder pain. Interesting. Which
14:24
led to the idea of intentionally performing a
14:26
surgical tonotomy, cutting the biceps tendon
14:29
arthroscopically. The usual technique is to cut
14:32
the tendon near its origin on the glenoid, the
14:35
socket, allowing it to retract down the arm out
14:37
of the joint. And the idea is just to remove
14:39
that painful degenerated bit of tissue from within
14:42
the joint space. Precisely. Cutting it near the
14:45
origin is allowed to reduce the risk of the remaining
14:47
stump causing irritation later on. However, it
14:50
is important to note that whilst tonotomy can
14:52
provide good pain relief for specific biceps
14:55
pathology, the literature actually presents somewhat
14:57
conflicting long -term results when you compare
14:59
it to debridement alone, specifically for the
15:02
irreparable rotator cuff tear itself. Some studies
15:06
show no significant additional long -term functional
15:08
benefit from just adding a tonotomy if the primary
15:11
pathology isn't actually biceps -driven pain.
15:14
Interesting. So it's really an adjunct for a
15:16
specific identifiable problem, not necessarily
15:19
a universal benefit for all irreparable tears.
15:23
What else might be done? Suprascapular nerve
15:25
release is another consideration sometimes. The
15:28
SSN, the suprascapular nerve, innervates both
15:31
the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles,
15:33
the ones commonly affected in these postural
15:35
superior irreparable tears. Okay. And the nerve
15:38
itself can sometimes be a source of pain and
15:40
weakness in these patients. Why would the nerve
15:42
get involved in a rotator cuff tear? That seems
15:45
indirect. Well, the exact mechanisms are still
15:47
debated, actually. But the proposed ideas, the
15:50
pathogenesis include things like traction injury
15:53
on the nerve as the torn muscles retract and
15:56
pull on the nerve branches or potentially entrapment
15:59
of the nerve as it passes through specific anatomical
16:01
notches near the shoulder blade, perhaps due
16:03
to scar tissue formation or even the fatty infiltration
16:06
that develops around the damaged muscle. And
16:08
how would that be diagnosed? Clinical suspicion
16:10
might arise from specific pain patterns or perhaps
16:13
isolated muscle weakness that seems out of proportion.
16:16
MRI can sometimes show severe atrophy of the
16:20
supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles or sometimes
16:23
suggest areas of potential compression along
16:26
the nerve's path. However, the gold standard
16:28
really for confirming nerve involvement is electromyography,
16:32
EMG, and nerve conduction studies. These directly
16:35
assess the electrical activity and function of
16:37
the nerve and the muscles it supplies. And the
16:40
treatment for that. Conservative management is
16:42
always the first line, things like rest, physiotherapy,
16:45
anti -inflammatory medications. If there's clear
16:48
evidence of nerve compression from the imaging
16:50
or the EMG studies, or if the pain and weakness
16:53
are really refractory to conservative care, then
16:55
surgical decompression or release of the nerve
16:57
can be performed. And that's often done arthroscopically
17:00
nowadays as well. We also touched briefly on
17:03
tuberoplasty earlier, sometimes called reversed
17:05
subacromial decompression. That sounds like it
17:08
addresses the bone changes, the high -riding
17:10
head you mentioned. It does, yes. As the humeral
17:13
head migrates superiorly, because there's no
17:15
functioning rotator cuff holding it down, the
17:18
greater tuberosity, that's the bony bump at the
17:21
top of the humerus where the cuff normally attaches,
17:24
can start to rub directly against the underside
17:26
of the acromion bone. Ouch. Yes. And this can
17:29
be a significant source of pain and impingement,
17:32
particularly during movement. Tuberoplasty, whether
17:34
it's performed open as described originally by
17:36
Fenlin or arthroscopically as described by Scheibel,
17:40
involves surgically removing that prominent impinging
17:43
portion of the greater tuberosity. So you're
17:45
essentially smoothing out the bones that are
17:47
clashing together. Exactly that. The goal isn't
17:50
necessarily to create more space in the traditional
17:52
subacromial decompression sense, but rather to
17:55
create a smoother, less painful articulation
17:57
between the humeral head and the acromeon as
18:00
the arm moves through its range. It's important
18:02
though to preserve the coracoacromial arch during
18:05
this procedure, as that structure provides important
18:08
stability to the shoulder. And does this help
18:10
patients? What are the outcomes? Studies specifically
18:13
on tuberoplasty have reported improvements in
18:15
pain levels, activities of daily living, range
18:18
of motion, and also constant scores. What's particularly
18:22
interesting, as noted by authors like Sendlin
18:24
and Scheibel, is that despite the fact that underlying
18:27
osteoarthritis might continue to progress radiographically
18:30
over time, The clinical benefits derive from
18:33
the tuberoplasty itself, so the pain reduction
18:35
and the improved function that comes from alleviating
18:38
that specific bony impingement can often still
18:41
be maintained long term. Okay, that covers quite
18:43
a range of arthroscopic interventions, mostly
18:45
focused on pain and smoothing out the mechanics,
18:48
it seems. Let's move on to something quite different
18:51
now, a relatively newer concept that's mentioned
18:53
in the sources, the subacromial biodegradable
18:57
spacer. This device has certainly generated a
19:00
lot of discussion, hasn't it? It has indeed,
19:02
yes. It's a fascinating area where the evidence
19:04
is still actively evolving. The device, often
19:07
known commercially as the in -space balloon,
19:10
is typically made of polyolactide, which is a
19:12
material that biodegrades slowly over time. It's
19:15
inserted arthroscopically into that subacromial
19:18
space, positioned above any remaining rotator
19:20
cuff tissue and below the acromion bone, and
19:23
then it's inflated, usually with saline solution.
19:26
So you're literally placing a balloon in the
19:28
shoulder. What's the thinking behind doing that?
19:31
Well, the proposed mechanism is primarily biomechanical.
19:35
The idea is that by occupying space in that subacromial
19:38
area, it's hypothesized to firstly reduce friction
19:42
between the humeral head and the acromion. Secondly,
19:45
to help lower the humeral head slightly, pushing
19:47
it back down towards a more centered position
19:50
in the joint. And thirdly, to facilitate smoother
19:53
gliding during arm movement. And how is it actually
19:55
used in practice? Typically it's implanted after
19:58
the initial arthroscopic steps we've discussed,
20:00
like a brisectomy and maybe some debridement.
20:03
The surgeon selects the appropriate size of the
20:05
spacer based on the size of the irreparable tear.
20:08
And how long does this balloon actually stay
20:10
there? Well, the material is designed to gradually
20:13
deflate over about 10 weeks or so and then fully
20:16
degrade and be absorbed by the body over approximately
20:19
15 months. What was initially quite curious in
20:22
the early literature was that clinical improvements
20:24
reported by patients seemed to persist well beyond
20:27
the point where the spacer had physically disintegrated.
20:30
That sounds quite promising, doesn't it? A temporary
20:33
intervention with potentially lasting benefits.
20:36
The initial theoretical benefits certainly sounded
20:38
compelling things like preserving the acromio
20:41
-humeral distance, optimizing force balance.
20:44
That was certainly the initial hope, yes, and
20:47
the theoretical basis for its use. The idea was
20:49
that by temporarily lowering the humeral head
20:52
and reducing that friction, it would improve
20:54
pain. and potentially even slow down the progression
20:57
of degenerative changes in the joint. But your
20:59
source material includes some significant contrasting
21:02
evidence about those theoretical benefits. This
21:04
is where the deep dive really gets into the nuances
21:06
of the research, I suppose. Absolutely. And this
21:09
is a really critical point for understanding
21:12
the current landscape regarding these spacers.
21:14
The Garrigas -Perez et al study, which was published
21:17
in the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic
21:20
Surgeons back in 2022. Right. presented findings
21:23
that directly challenged some of those initial
21:26
theoretical benefits. Their results quite significantly,
21:30
did not demonstrate that the spacer prevented
21:32
superior humeral head migration, or indeed arthropathic
21:36
changes, the development of arthritis. So not
21:39
only did it not prevent them, but the study actually
21:41
found that the acromio -humeral distance, that
21:43
space we talked about, actually worsened over
21:45
time. And the hamada stage, which is the x -ray
21:47
grading of the arthritis, also worsened during
21:50
their follow -up period. That is correct. That
21:52
was a key and somewhat surprising finding because
21:54
it directly contradicted that core biomechanical
21:57
goal of the device. which was to maintain or
22:00
improve the subacromial space and prevent that
22:02
upward migration. Furthermore, their study reported
22:05
relatively low functional outcomes. When they
22:08
looked at various standard orthopedic scores
22:09
like the constant score, the ACs, the simple
22:12
shoulder test, SST, and the DHH score, the results
22:15
were generally not as robust as perhaps seen
22:18
with other procedures or maybe in some of the
22:21
initial early reports on the spacer. Patient
22:23
satisfaction in their series was also only around
22:25
62 .5%. So objectively, the joint seemed to be
22:29
getting worse on x -rays, and the functional
22:30
benefits and patient happiness weren't overwhelmingly
22:33
positive in that study. That's a fair summary
22:36
of their specific findings, yes. Whilst perceived
22:38
quality of life measured by something like the
22:41
UroCohl score might have seemed less impaired,
22:43
the objective measures of the joint structure
22:45
itself and the specific shoulder function scores
22:47
were, well, concerningly low, or even worsening
22:50
over time in their cohort. And what about complications?
22:53
Did that study shed any light on the risks involved?
22:56
Yes, it did. Garrigas -Perez and colleagues reported
22:59
a 13 % complication rate in their series. This
23:02
included instances of deep infection and also
23:05
balloon migration where the spacer moves from
23:07
its intended position. Okay. Now, whilst these
23:11
aren't necessarily exceedingly high rates compared
23:14
to some very complex joint procedures, they are
23:17
nevertheless serious complications that can require
23:19
further surgery and potentially jeopardize the
23:22
overall viability of the shoulder joint, perhaps
23:24
in a situation where a less complex intervention
23:27
pathway might otherwise have been chosen. Okay,
23:30
so the subacronial spacer. It's clearly an innovative
23:33
concept, but the evidence, certainly based on
23:35
this more recent study, appears quite mixed.
23:39
While it might offer some temporary pain relief
23:41
or functional improvement for certain patients,
23:44
this higher level evidence raises significant
23:45
questions about its ability to durably prevent
23:48
that superior migration or the progression of
23:50
arthritis. And it highlights potentially lower
23:53
functional outcomes and a non -trivial risk of
23:55
complications compared to what might have been
23:57
initially hoped or reported. That's a really
24:00
critical piece of evolving understanding based
24:03
on the literature, isn't it? It certainly is,
24:05
and it makes the decision of whether or not to
24:07
use a spacer much more complex now. It requires
24:10
really careful consideration of this conflicting
24:12
data alongside all the other treatment options
24:15
that are available. Absolutely. Moving on from
24:18
temporary implants then, let's look at attempts
24:20
to actually modify the torn tissue itself. The
24:23
sources discuss the possibility of doing a partial
24:27
rotator cuff repair. How is that different from
24:30
attempting a full repair, which we know is often
24:33
not possible? Right. So in an irreparable tear,
24:36
by definition, you cannot pull all the torn tendon
24:39
back to its original anacomical footprint on
24:41
the bone without creating excessive tension.
24:44
A partial repair is based on a biomechanical
24:46
concept often called the suspension bridge analogy,
24:49
which was popularized by Dr. Steven Burkhart.
24:51
OK. The idea is that certain key components of
24:54
the rotator cuff particularly a thickened band
24:56
within it called the rotator cable, act a bit
24:58
like the main cables of a suspension bridge.
25:01
They transmit forces across the joint, even if
25:04
parts of the deck, the rest of the tendon are
25:06
missing. So if you can't fix everything, the
25:09
idea is to fix the most structurally important
25:11
parts to restore at least some function. Precisely.
25:14
The goal isn't full anacomical coverage of the
25:17
bone, but rather to repair enough tissue to restore
25:20
a stable fulcrum for the humeral head to rotate
25:22
against, and crucially, to reestablish some of
25:25
the important transverse force couples that help
25:28
keep the humeral head centered in the glenoid
25:30
socket during movement. The literature suggests
25:33
that for poster superior tears, repairing at
25:36
least the whole subscapularis tendon at the front,
25:39
if that's involved, and at least the inferior
25:42
half of the infospinatus tendon at the back,
25:44
particularly where it connects to that rotator
25:45
cable structure, seems to be critical for achieving
25:48
a functionally successful partial repair. And
25:51
does this approach, this functional partial repair,
25:54
actually work in practice? Well, studies have
25:56
shown some promising results. For example, Porcellini
25:59
and colleagues published on the outcomes of doing
26:01
a functional partial repair of just the infraspinatus
26:04
in massive tears, even leaving parts of the greater
26:07
tuberosity footprint uncovered. They reported
26:09
significant improvements in constant scores and
26:12
simple shoulder test scores, indicating better
26:14
function and reduced pain. And crucially, they
26:17
also observed an increase in the acromiohumeral
26:20
distance after the surgery, suggesting that the
26:22
partial repair actually helped to re -center
26:24
the humeral head, even though they didn't achieve
26:27
full anatomical coverage. That's really encouraging,
26:30
isn't it? That focusing on restoring those key
26:33
biomechanical elements, even with what looks
26:36
like an incomplete anatomical repair, can still
26:39
lead to good functional outcomes and potentially
26:42
even improve the joint mechanics. Yes, it suggests
26:45
that sometimes Less is more if you target the
26:48
right structures. Now, let's move into what are
26:50
often considered the more involved surgical options,
26:53
tendon transfer procedures. When do these typically
26:56
come into play? Tendon transfers are generally
26:58
reserved for a quite specific subset of patients.
27:02
Typically, we're thinking about younger, more
27:04
active individuals who have a really significant
27:06
functional deficit, things like severe weakness
27:09
or a major loss of rotation, specifically because
27:12
of any irreparable tear. They're usually considered
27:14
when simpler procedures like the debridement
27:17
or even a partial repair aren't really expected
27:20
to address the primary problem, which is often
27:23
that profound muscle weakness. The sources often
27:27
refer to them as salvage procedures. Salvage.
27:30
Yes, because they are complex undertakings used
27:33
when the less invasive options are deemed insufficient
27:35
and perhaps joint replacement isn't yet indicated,
27:39
often because the patient is younger or they
27:40
don't have significant arthritis in the joint
27:42
yet. So definitely not for everyone, but perhaps
27:45
for those with severe disability who really want
27:47
to regain significant function. Exactly that.
27:50
Careful patient selection is absolutely paramount
27:53
here. The factors influencing the decision include
27:55
the patient's age and their activity level, their
27:58
overall health, and any other medical conditions,
28:01
the specific pattern of weakness and functional
28:03
loss they're experiencing, the stability of the
28:05
joint itself, and critically, as I mentioned,
28:08
the absence of significant glenohumeral osteoarthritis.
28:12
If there's already advanced arthritis present,
28:15
a tendon transfer is usually not a suitable option.
28:18
And the biomechanical idea here is essentially
28:20
to use a different healthy muscle to do the job
28:23
that the damaged rotator cuff muscle used to
28:25
do. That's the core principle, yes. You're essentially
28:28
rerouting a working muscle and its tendon from
28:32
somewhere else around the shoulder or even the
28:33
trunk and attaching it to the bone. near where
28:37
the torn rotator cuff tendon used to insert.
28:40
The goal is to restore that lost force couple,
28:43
improve the kinematics, the actual movement patterns
28:45
of the shoulder, and thereby hopefully restore
28:48
strength and function. The specific muscle chosen
28:51
depends very much on which part of the rotator
28:53
cuff is irreparable. Is it the post -re superior
28:56
section or the antre superior section? Okay,
28:58
let's break that down by the tear location then.
29:00
For those irreparable post or superior tears,
29:03
the ones involving the supraspinatus and infraspinatus
29:05
at the top and back, what are the main transfer
29:07
options? Well, the most established and perhaps
29:09
best -known transfer for post or superior tears
29:12
is the latissimus dorsi transfer. often abbreviated
29:15
as LD transfer. The latissimus dorsi is that
29:19
large muscle in the back, sometimes called the
29:21
lats, that primarily functions as an internal
29:24
rotator, an extensor, and an adductor of the
29:27
arm. By carefully detaching its tendon from where
29:30
it inserts on the humerus and rerouting it up
29:32
and over to the area of the torn supraspinatus
29:34
and infraspinatus, it can actually be retrained
29:37
to help with external rotation. And importantly,
29:41
it can also provide a downward pull on the humeral
29:44
head, which helps to counteract the upward pull
29:46
of the deltoid muscle that happens when the cuff
29:48
is deficient. So you're effectively teaching
29:50
a muscle to do pretty much the opposite of its
29:52
original job. That's a simplified way to put
29:55
it, yes. With dedicated post -operative rehabilitation,
29:59
the patient learns to activate the transferred
30:00
muscle to assist with movements like external
30:03
rotation, and sometimes it can help with abduction
30:05
too, lifting the arm out to the side. This procedure
30:09
actually has quite a long history. It was originally
30:11
used for nerve injuries like brachial plexus
30:13
palsy. Suitable candidates for an LD transfer
30:16
typically have an irreparable postural superior
30:19
tear with significant muscle atrophy and fatty
30:21
infiltration, usually atoliate grade 3 or worse.
30:25
They have marked impairment of abduction, and
30:28
particularly external rotation, often demonstrated
30:31
by positive lag signs on clinical examination.
30:33
And who would be excluded? Who isn't suitable
30:36
for this? Key contraindications highlighted in
30:39
the literature include significant subscapularis
30:41
tendon insufficiency. That's the muscle at the
30:43
front. If that muscle is also not working well,
30:46
the overall stability and the ability to lift
30:49
the arm forward will likely be compromised, even
30:51
with the transfer. OK. Also, advanced eccentric
30:54
arthritis hamata stage 4 or higher established
30:56
pseudo -paralysis that isn't simply due to pain
30:59
inhibiting movement, significant deltoid muscle
31:01
dysfunction, and also severe fatty infiltration
31:04
of the teres minor muscle, which is another important
31:06
external rotator at the back. These are generally
31:08
considered contraindications. The sources really
31:11
stress the need for an intact and well -functioning
31:13
subscapularis for the LD transfer to have the
31:16
best chance of success, particularly for restoring
31:18
forward elevation. How is this transfer actually
31:21
performed surgically? Historically, it often
31:24
involved a two -incision technique, one incision
31:26
on the back to harvest the LD tendon and another
31:29
on the shoulder for the insertion. More commonly
31:31
now, surgeons use single -incision approaches
31:34
or even arthroscopy -assisted techniques to try
31:37
and minimize the surgical invasiveness. Habermeyer
31:40
described a single V -shaped incision that can
31:43
apparently improve visualization. And what about
31:45
the outcomes for LD transfer? Is it reliable?
31:47
Does it work well? It is generally considered
31:50
very effective for reducing pain and improving
31:52
function, although restoring full normal strength
31:54
is perhaps more variable. Long -term follow -up
31:58
studies, such as those published by Gerber's
31:59
group, have shown significant improvements in
32:02
subjective shoulder value scores. constant scores,
32:05
pain levels, and also active range of motion,
32:07
including gains in that crucial external rotation.
32:10
But... However, they also found that factors
32:12
like pre -existing subscapularis insufficiency
32:14
or severe fatty infiltration of the teres minor
32:17
were indeed associated with poorer outcomes,
32:21
which really reinforces the importance of that
32:22
careful patient selection we discussed. What
32:24
about the Lepiskopo procedure? Is that something
32:26
different? The Lepiskopo procedure is related,
32:29
yes. It's essentially a modified technique that
32:31
adds the transfer of the teres major muscle along
32:35
with the latissimus dorsi. Okay. This was also
32:38
initially used for brachial plexus injuries,
32:41
but it's been adapted for massive rotator cuff
32:43
tears, particularly for addressing really severe
32:46
external rotation deficits. The idea of including
32:49
the teres major is to provide some additional
32:51
external rotation power. Boileau and colleagues
32:54
have even described combining the Lepiskopo transfer
32:57
with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty in certain
33:00
very complex cases. So adding even more complexity
33:03
to specifically target that external rotation
33:06
deficit. Precisely. Another transfer that's been
33:08
gaining quite a bit of attention more recently
33:10
for posterior -superior tears is the lower trapezius
33:13
transfer or LT transfer. The lower trapezius?
33:16
That sounds like a completely different approach.
33:18
How does that work biomechanically? Well, the
33:20
lower trapezius transfer involves harvesting
33:22
the distal lower portion of the LT muscle and
33:25
its tendon. This is typically augmented with
33:27
a graft, often an Achilles tendon allograft,
33:30
sometimes with a piece of bone block attached.
33:33
And this graft is then rerouted around the side
33:35
of the scapula, the shoulder blade, to be attached
33:37
to the footprint of the torn infraspinatus or
33:40
perhaps the posterior supraspinatus on the humerus.
33:43
Does taking part of the trapezius muscle affect
33:45
scapular movement or stability? That sounds like
33:48
it could be a concern. That's a very valid concern,
33:50
yes, and the sources do discuss it. However,
33:54
the general consensus seems to be that if the
33:56
serratus anterior muscle, which is another key
33:57
scapular stabilizer, is functioning normally,
34:00
the risk of developing significant scapular winging
34:03
or instability from harvesting, just the lower
34:06
portion of the trapezius, is considered relatively
34:08
low. What kind of results are reported for the
34:10
LT transfer, then? Studies, like one by Elhassan
34:13
and colleagues, have reported really quite significant
34:16
improvements in active range of motion after
34:18
lower trapezius transfer for these irreparable
34:21
postural superior tears. Specifically, they noted
34:25
gains in abduction, forward flexion, and external
34:28
rotation, as well as substantial reductions in
34:30
pain levels. And how does it stack up biomechanically
34:34
against the more traditional LD transfer? Is
34:37
one better? This is where the comparison gets
34:39
really interesting actually. Biomechanical studies,
34:42
including work by people like Hartzler and Omid,
34:44
have compared the moment arms of these different
34:46
transfers. The moment arm essentially tells you
34:49
how effectively the muscle's force can generate
34:51
rotational movement at the shoulder joint. Right.
34:54
Their findings suggest that the lower trapezius
34:56
transfer might actually have a larger external
34:58
rotation moment arm, particularly when the arm
35:00
is in an adducted position close to the body.
35:04
OMID studies specifically propose that the LT
35:06
transfer might be biomechanically superior to
35:08
the LD transfer in terms of restoring the native
35:11
glenohumor mechanics and the joint forces required
35:14
for both elevation and rotation. So potentially
35:16
a more powerful or perhaps more efficient muscle
35:19
substitute for restoring those lost movements
35:22
depending on the arm position. That's certainly
35:25
the implication from the biomechanical analysis
35:27
that it could provide a more, shall we say, natural
35:31
force vector for shoulder function compared to
35:34
the LD. That covers the postero superior side
35:36
pretty thoroughly. What about irreparable tears
35:38
on the other side, the antero superior side,
35:41
primarily involving the subscapularis end in
35:43
the SSC? Yes, antero superior tears, particularly
35:47
isolated irreparable subscapularis tears, are
35:50
generally less frequent than postero superior
35:52
ones, but they cause quite different functional
35:55
deficits. Patients typically present with pain
35:57
at the front of the shoulder, anterior shoulder
36:00
pain, and significant weakness in internal rotation.
36:03
This makes tasks like tucking in a shirt or reaching
36:05
behind the back very difficult. Clinically, tests
36:09
like the belly press test, the bear hug test,
36:11
and the lift -off test are usually positive,
36:13
indicating that internal rotation weakness. And
36:16
similar to the posterior tiers, I assume direct
36:18
repair is often unsuccessful if the tissue quality
36:20
is poor. Exactly the same principle applies,
36:23
yes. For chronic SSE tiers, especially those
36:27
with significant fatty infiltration again, Goutalier
36:30
grade 3 or higher direct repair has generally
36:33
poor outcomes due to high rates of retire. So
36:36
in these specific cases, tendon transfers are
36:39
again considered as potential salvage options,
36:41
and the primary transfer used for irreparable
36:43
SSE cares is the pectoralis major transfer. or
36:47
PMA transfer. Transferring the pectoralis muscle
36:49
from the chest, how does that help restore internal
36:52
rotation? Well the pectoralis major is that large
36:55
chest muscle that assists with flexion, adduction,
36:58
and crucially internal rotation of the arm. The
37:01
procedure involves detaching its tendon from
37:03
its insertion on the humerus and then transferring
37:05
it more posteriorly and superiorly onto the lesser
37:08
tuberosity, which is where the torn subscapularis
37:10
footprint is located. This allows it to be used
37:13
to provide active internal rotation power. Who
37:15
is the ideal candidate for a PMA transfer then?
37:18
Candidates typically have an irreparable antra
37:20
-superior tear involving the subscapularis. They
37:23
should have minimal to no significant glenohumeral
37:26
arthritis. They need a well -functioning deltoid
37:29
muscle. Generally, they're younger than about
37:31
65. And importantly, they need to have an intact
37:35
or at least repairable post -tra -superior rotator
37:38
cuff. the supraspinatus and infraspinatus. Why
37:41
is the posterior cuff being intact so important
37:44
for this anterior transfer? Well, just as the
37:46
subscapularis is crucial for the success of posterior
37:49
superior transfers like the LD, having a functioning
37:52
posterior superior cuff is absolutely vital for
37:55
the overall balance and stability of the shoulder
37:57
when the subscapularis at the front is deficient
37:59
and being replaced by the pectoralis major transfer.
38:02
The force couples around the joint need to be
38:04
balanced for effective movement and also to prevent
38:06
that superior migration. of the humeral head.
38:08
Right, makes sense. In terms of surgical technique,
38:11
there are different approaches described for
38:13
the PMA transfer. Some transfer the tendon anterior
38:16
to the conjoined tendon that's formed by the
38:19
short head of the biceps and the corcobrachialis,
38:21
while others prefer to pass it underneath the
38:23
conjoined tendon. Dr. Warner described an approach
38:26
specifically underneath the clavicular head of
38:29
the pectoralis major, which aims to avoid potential
38:32
injury to the musculocutaneous nerve, which can
38:34
be a risk during this procedure. Whilst large
38:37
comparative studies looking at these different
38:39
techniques are perhaps scarce, authors like Resch
38:42
and Galatz have reported generally satisfactory
38:45
clinical outcomes following PMA transfer. They
38:48
show significant improvements in pain and functional
38:50
scores, including increases in AC scores, demonstrating
38:54
restored internal rotation strength, and improved
38:57
overall shoulder function. So it seems like an
39:00
effective option for restoring that lost internal
39:02
rotation provided the patient selection is right.
39:04
Are there any other transfer options for these
39:06
anterior superior tears? Yes, the pectoralis
39:09
minor transfer PMI has also been used. This is
39:12
sometimes used in conjunction with a graft or
39:15
perhaps as a smaller transfer option depending
39:17
on the tear pattern. Wirth and Rockwood were
39:20
among the first to describe using the PMI tendon
39:23
either as a graft or as a direct transfer for
39:26
irreparable subscapularis tears. And when might
39:30
that specific transfer be indicated? It's typically
39:33
considered for tears that involve mainly the
39:35
upper two -thirds of the subscapularis tendon
39:37
rather than the entire tendon. Palladini and
39:40
colleagues described a specific technique involving
39:42
transferring the pectoralis minor along with
39:44
a small piece of the coracoid bone where it attaches
39:47
onto the superior two -thirds of the subscapularis
39:49
footprint. They often use this for combined irreparable
39:52
tears involving both superior cuff, supraspinitis,
39:56
and the upper subscapularis. Their study reported
39:58
good outcomes at a two -year follow -up. with
40:00
significant improvements in constant scores,
40:03
and also a high rate of patients being able to
40:04
return to their previous daily and even recreational
40:06
activities. So it suggests this can be a viable
40:09
option for certain specific patterns of complex
40:11
anterior superior tears. It's really remarkable,
40:14
isn't it, how many different muscle surgeons
40:16
can potentially repurpose to try and restore
40:19
lost function around the shoulder. Beyond these
40:21
muscle transfers, the sources also discuss using
40:24
different types of grafts, biological or synthetic
40:27
materials, to either augment repairs or bridge
40:30
large defects. Absolutely. Graft augmentation
40:34
techniques represent another important strategy
40:36
in the armamentarium for massive or irreparable
40:40
tears. This is particularly relevant where there's
40:42
a large gap in the tendon tissue that simply
40:44
cannot be closed, even partially, without creating
40:47
excessive tension. Right. The idea here is to
40:50
use biological materials, or sometimes synthetic
40:52
ones, to provide structural support, essentially
40:55
bridge the defect, or potentially even enhance
40:57
the biological healing environment. What kind
40:59
of materials are typically used for these grafts?
41:02
Well, they can be interpositional grafts, meaning
41:04
they're placed between the torn edges to bridge
41:06
the gap, and they can come from various sources.
41:09
Allografts, which are derived from human donors,
41:12
include materials like human dermal allograft
41:14
skin, or fascialata allograft, a tough connective
41:18
tissue from the thigh. Autografts are harvested
41:20
from the patient themselves, most commonly fascialata
41:23
from their own thigh, or perhaps a strip of iliotibial
41:27
band, also from the leg. Synthetic grafts and
41:30
also extracellular matrix products exist too,
41:32
although the provided literature seems to focus
41:34
more heavily on the biological grafts for this
41:37
purpose, for interposition. A review by Sunwoo
41:39
and Merle looked specifically at the biomechanical
41:42
properties of these different graft types. They
41:44
found that biological grafts like the allografts
41:47
and autografts from Fasciolata or Iliotibial
41:49
band tend to have quite similar stiffness and
41:52
maximal load to failure compared to the native
41:54
rotator cuff tendons themselves. Synthetic grafts,
41:57
they found, might have similar load capacity
41:59
but were often less stiff. And extracellular
42:02
matrix grafts were typically lower in both stiffness
42:05
and load capacity. This biomechanical understanding
42:09
is quite important, isn't it, for predicting
42:10
how well a particular graft might function under
42:13
the stresses experienced in the shoulder. Absolutely.
42:16
And clinically, do these grafts actually improve
42:19
outcomes for patients? Well, the clinical evidence
42:22
presented in the sources is generally quite positive,
42:25
suggesting that grafts can indeed be a valuable
42:27
adjunct in selected cases. Yeah. Demetrio's et
42:30
al., for instance, reported improvements in pain
42:32
and constant scores using a fascialata allograft
42:35
for inner position, and they noted relatively
42:38
low re -tier rates in their series. Okay. Panday
42:41
et al. conducted a study where they found that
42:42
using a dermal allograft to augment a partial
42:45
repair actually improved outcomes measured by
42:47
the Oxford shoulder score and constant score.
42:50
compared to just doing the partial repair alone
42:52
for symptomatic irreparable tears. So adding
42:54
the graft actually improved the results compared
42:57
to just doing the partial repair on its own.
42:59
That was their specific finding, yes. It suggests
43:02
the graft provided some beneficial structural
43:04
support or perhaps enhanced the healing process.
43:08
Morial's study using fascia lata autograft highlighted
43:12
an interesting point. Its efficacy seemed to
43:15
be linked to the degree of fatty degeneration
43:17
already present in the remaining muscle. The
43:20
grafts appeared to perform better when the fatty
43:22
infiltration was less severe. Which makes sense
43:25
biologically, doesn't it? The muscle has to be
43:27
functional enough to actually load the graft
43:28
effectively for it to work. And Mahara et al.
43:32
described using an iliotibial band autograft,
43:35
which had a bone block still attached. This bone
43:38
block was then fixed directly to the humerus
43:40
bone. They reported good pain relief, functional
43:42
scores, and range of motion improvements. They
43:45
also noted that the bone block successfully united
43:47
to the humerus, and importantly, they reported
43:49
no significant donor site morbidity from harvesting
43:52
the graft. It sounds like these biological graphs
43:55
show quite a bit of promise then, particularly
43:58
according to that Sunrew and Merle review, which,
44:00
as you mentioned, noted promising two -year outcomes
44:03
regardless of the specific biological graph type
44:06
used, and with relatively few complications reported.
44:09
Yes. That review certainly provided a positive
44:11
outlook on the potential role of biological graphs,
44:15
either for augmentation or interposition, in
44:17
selected cases of irreparable tiers, at least
44:20
in the medium term. Building on that concept
44:22
of using graphs, another technique that's received
44:25
significant attention in recent years is superior
44:28
capsular reconstruction, or SCR. This seems specifically
44:32
designed to address a fundamental biomechanical
44:34
problem caused by these large tears. It is, yes.
44:37
The rationale for SCR, which was really pioneered
44:40
and popularized by Dr. Teruhizo Meata in Japan
44:43
is based on the concept that these massive irreparable
44:46
tears often result in a deficiency not just of
44:48
the rotator cuff canons themselves, but also
44:50
the superior capsule of the shoulder joint. This
44:53
superior capsular defect is thought to contribute
44:57
significantly to the glenohumeral instability
44:59
and that upward migration of the humeral head
45:02
that we keep talking about. It's part of what
45:05
Mihata termed the circle concept of instability
45:07
that occurs in the setting of rotator cuff deficiency.
45:10
So the tear isn't just a hole in the tendons,
45:13
it actually compromises a key stabilizing structure
45:15
right on top of the joint itself. Exactly that.
45:18
The goal of SER is therefore to reconstruct that
45:21
deficient superior capsule in order to restore
45:24
passive stability to the joint and prevent that
45:26
superior translation or upward movement of the
45:29
humeral head. The original Mihata technique involved
45:32
using a folded graft, typically fascia latae,
45:34
either harvested as an autograft from the patient's
45:37
thigh or using an allograft. This graft is then
45:40
meticulously fixed medially to the superior aspect
45:43
of the glenoid rim, the edge of the socket, and
45:46
laterally to the greater tuberosity footprint
45:48
on the humerus where the supraspinatus would
45:50
normally attach. It essentially creates a new
45:52
superior constraint, like putting a roof back
45:54
on. It's also often sutured to any remaining
45:57
viable rotator cuff tissue at the front or back.
45:59
And what's the specific biomechanical goal of
46:02
this complex reconstruction? Well, by restoring
46:05
that superior constraint, the procedure aims
46:08
to recreate the normal force couple mechanics
46:11
around the shoulder. It aims to significantly
46:13
increase the concurrently humeral distance by
46:16
effectively pushing the humeral head back down
46:19
into a more centered position. And thereby, it
46:22
aims to improve the instability caused by the
46:25
underlying cuff deficiency. And were the reported
46:28
outcomes impressive? It sounds like a big procedure.
46:31
They were indeed, yes, and they generated considerable
46:33
excitement within the orthopedic community. Mahata's
46:36
original studies, primarily using the Fascialata
46:39
autograft, showed really quite dramatic improvements
46:41
in clinical scores. Things like the AC score,
46:44
the JOA, Japanese Orthopedic Association score,
46:47
and the UCLA score. They also showed significant
46:50
gains in active range of motion, and importantly,
46:53
objective evidence on post -operative imaging
46:54
of corrected instability, and that increased
46:57
chromiohumeral distance. That sounds like a potential
47:00
major breakthrough for certain types of patients,
47:02
then. Who is the ideal candidate for an SCR procedure?
47:06
It's typically indicated for younger, more active
47:08
patients who have massive, irreparable, post
47:12
or superior rotator cuff tears, but who do not
47:15
have significant pre -existing glenohumeral osteoarthritis.
47:19
No arthritis. Correct. They often have specific
47:22
patterns of fatty degeneration and tendon retraction.
47:26
But crucially, their humeral head should not
47:28
be rigidly fixed in a high -riding position.
47:31
It needs to be reducible. How do you actually
47:33
know if it's fixed high -riding? Well a key clinical
47:35
test often performed is the sulcus maneuver.
47:38
If the surgeon can apply gentle downward traction
47:41
on the patient's arm and the humeral head visibly
47:43
translates inferiorly, creating a sulcus or dimple
47:47
just below the acromion bone, it suggests that
47:49
the head is still mobile and reducible, not fixed
47:52
rigidly in its superiorly migrated position.
47:55
This indicates there's enough mobility left in
47:57
the joint and the surrounding soft tissues for
47:59
the SCR graft to potentially be effective in
48:02
stabilizing the head in a better position. If
48:04
the head is already fixed high and cannot be
48:06
reduced, then SCR is generally contraindicated.
48:09
And are there variations or evolutions of the
48:11
technique being used now? Yes, definitely. Other
48:14
graft sources are being explored. For instance,
48:17
using the long head of the biceps tendon as an
48:19
autograft after performing a tenotomy has been
48:22
described by Chalami and others. This potentially
48:24
eliminates the need for a separate donor site
48:26
harvest from the leg. Different techniques for
48:29
graft introduction and fixation are also continually
48:32
being refined to try and improve the procedure
48:34
and outcomes. This leads us naturally, I think,
48:37
to perhaps the most definitive surgical option
48:39
for many of these complex irreparable tears,
48:43
reverse total shoulder arthroplasty or... RTSA.
48:47
Yes, RTSA has truly transformed the management
48:50
of these complex shoulder problems over the past
48:53
couple of days. It's now often considered a primary
48:56
first -line treatment for very specific indications
48:58
related to irreparable rotator cuff deficiency.
49:01
What are those key indications where RTSA is
49:04
considered upfront? Well, the most prominent
49:05
indication is probably patients who have a true
49:08
pseudo -paralytic shoulder resulting from an
49:10
irreparable tear. That means they simply cannot
49:12
actively elevate their arm effectively because
49:14
the rotator cuff is completely non -functional
49:16
as a prime mover. Another major indication is
49:19
the combination of an irreparable rotator cuff
49:22
tear with significant pre -existing glenohumeral
49:25
osteoarthritis. This specific condition is often
49:29
termed cuff tear arthropathy. Okay. RTSA is also
49:33
often considered for patients who are perhaps
49:35
not ideal candidates for arthroscopic procedures
49:38
or tendon transfers, maybe due to their age,
49:41
their general health, or the specific nature
49:43
of their tear and resulting dysfunction. And
49:46
remind us why it's called reverse arthroplasty.
49:48
Yes. Well, unlike a conventional or anatomical
49:51
total shoulder replacement, where a metal ball
49:54
is placed on the humerus side and the plastic
49:56
socket is put on the glenoid side, mimicking
49:59
normal anatomy. In a reverse replacement, the
50:02
geometry is flipped or reversed. A metal hemisphere
50:05
called the glenosphere is fixed onto the glenoid
50:07
bone, the socket side, and a plastic socket or
50:10
cup within the humeral component is placed on
50:13
the top of the humerus, the arm bone side. This
50:15
design effectively lateralizes and distalizes
50:18
the center of rotation of the shoulder joint.
50:20
And how does that change in geometry help patients
50:22
who have a non -functioning rotator cuff? By
50:25
changing that center of rotation, The deltoid
50:28
muscle, which is usually intact and strong in
50:30
these patients, becomes a much more effective
50:32
lever arm for elevating the arm. It simply bypasses
50:35
the need for a functional rotator cuff to lift
50:38
the arm overhead, allowing the powerful deltoid
50:41
muscle to take over this crucial role. That's
50:44
quite an ingenious biomechanical solution, isn't
50:46
it? And what about the outcomes for RTSA? How
50:49
well does it work? Systematic reviews, like the
50:52
one by Petrillo et al. that you provided consistently
50:55
show statistically significant improvements in
50:57
clinical scores and also an active range of motion,
51:00
particularly in forward elevation and abduction.
51:03
Patients who were previously pseudo -paralytics
51:05
often regain quite functional elevation of their
51:07
arm. However, these reviews also often note limitations,
51:11
particularly in reliably restoring active external
51:14
rotation, which can sometimes remain weak even
51:17
after a successful RTSA. And the wall -it -all
51:21
review... specifically highlighted that the best
51:24
functional results from RTSA are typically seen
51:26
in those patients with established cuff tear
51:27
arthropathy. That's where the combination of
51:30
pain relief from the arthritis and the restored
51:32
elevation function leads to the most dramatic
51:34
improvements, often showing very significant
51:37
increases in constant scores. So it's particularly
51:40
effective at restoring the ability to lift the
51:42
arm, especially when there's significant arthritis
51:44
involved as well. What's the main downside then
51:47
or the major concern with RTSA? The primary concern,
51:51
which is consistently highlighted in the literature,
51:53
is the risk of significant perioperative complications
51:56
compared to some of the less invasive procedures
51:58
we've discussed. That Petrillo review, for instance,
52:01
compiled complication rates for multiple studies.
52:04
They reported figures like 2 .4 % for mechanical
52:07
failure of the implants themselves, 2 .7 % for
52:10
fractions of the acromion or scapular spine occurring
52:13
after the surgery, almost 1 % for deep infections
52:15
requiring further treatment, and around 6 .6%.
52:18
for heterotopic ossification that's abnormal
52:21
bone formation around the new joint. Those numbers
52:24
do sound... quite significant. They are, yes.
52:28
And whilst revision surgery might eventually
52:30
be needed for any shoulder procedure, the risk
52:32
with RTSA is generally considered higher and
52:35
revision RTSA surgery can be particularly complex
52:37
and challenging. These potential complications
52:40
require very careful patient counseling and consideration,
52:43
especially perhaps in younger or healthier patients
52:45
where other less definitive options might still
52:48
be preferred initially if possible. It's also
52:50
worth noting going back to that issue of external
52:52
rotation, that for patients where restoring external
52:56
rotation remains a major functional goal, some
52:59
surgeons have explored combining the RTSA procedure
53:01
with a latissimus dorsi, or perhaps a lopiscopal
53:04
transfer at the same time. Authors like Boyleau
53:06
and Bouibri have reported on this, attempting
53:08
to address that specific rotational deficit concurrently
53:12
with the joint replacement. OK, wow. We have
53:15
covered an absolutely vast spectrum of options
53:17
here, haven't we? Ranging from potentially encouraging
53:20
results with just physiotherapy right through
53:22
to complex muscle transfers and joint replacement.
53:25
Given this huge range, how does a surgeon actually
53:29
navigate this and decide which procedure is the
53:32
right one? for a given patient presenting with
53:34
an irreparable tear. Yes. This is absolutely
53:37
the crux of the challenge, isn't it? And it brings
53:38
us right back to the idea of a decision pathway,
53:41
which is hinted at in the sources. The reality
53:43
is there's no single simple algorithm that applies
53:46
perfectly to every single patient. It requires
53:49
really careful consideration of multiple factors,
53:52
starting fundamentally with the patient themselves
53:54
and what their goals are. Let's try and walk
53:56
through that decision process logically, then.
53:58
OK. Well, it really begins with a thorough patient
54:01
assessment. We need to know their age, their
54:04
activity level, their functional demands. What
54:07
do they need and want to do with their shoulder?
54:09
Their overall health and any comorbidities are
54:11
crucial. And critically, what is their primary
54:15
complaint? Is it mainly pain? Is it weakness?
54:19
Or is it that inability to lift the arm, the
54:21
pseudo -paralysis? Then on clinical examination
54:24
and looking at the imaging, x -rays, MRI, the
54:26
surgeon assesses the specific tear pattern which
54:29
tendons are involved. How retracted are they?
54:31
What's the quality of the muscle? What are like
54:33
how much atrophy and fatty infiltration is there?
54:35
What's the acromiohumeral distance? Is the giant
54:38
stable? And importantly, is there any osteoarthritis
54:40
present? And if so, how severe is it? So gathering
54:44
all those different pieces of information together
54:46
first is key. Exactly. Then the initial approach,
54:49
as we discussed right at the beginning, is often
54:52
conservative management, especially for those
54:54
patients who don't have significant superior
54:56
migration of the humeral head yet. Physiotherapy
54:59
focused on strengthening the remaining muscles,
55:02
particularly that anterior deltoid, is really
55:04
key here. Right. If pseudo -paralysis is present,
55:07
sometimes a diagnostic injection of local anesthetic
55:10
into the joint can be helpful. It can help differentiate
55:13
if the inability to lift the arm is purely due
55:16
to pain inhibition. in which case blocking the
55:19
pain might temporarily restore some movement
55:21
or if it's due to an absolute mechanical deficiency
55:25
of the cuff. And if that conservative care fails
55:28
to provide adequate relief, particularly for
55:30
ongoing pain, then the arthroscopic options come
55:33
into consideration. Arthroscopic debridement
55:35
and brosectomy are often the primary choices
55:37
specifically for pain relief, especially perhaps
55:40
in older or lower demand patients where function
55:43
might be less of a concern than comfort. Adjuncts
55:46
like a biceps tenotomy might be added if there's
55:48
clear evidence of biceps pathology contributing
55:51
to the pain. A partial rotator cuff repair could
55:54
be attempted if it seems that a functional repair,
55:56
restoring those key force couples, might be achievable
55:59
based on the remaining tissue quality and its
56:02
mobility. And suprascapular nerve release would
56:05
only be considered if there's specific evidence
56:08
pointing towards nerve involvement causing pain
56:10
or weakness. Where does the subacromial spacer
56:14
fit into this decision pathway now, given the
56:17
recent evidence? Oh, that's a good question.
56:20
And its place is perhaps less clear -cut now
56:23
than it might have seemed a few years ago. Based
56:25
on some of the initial reports, the spacer was
56:27
often positioned in the pathway as an option
56:29
for patients who had failed conservative care,
56:31
but perhaps weren't deemed suitable candidates
56:33
for a partial repair or more complex transfers.
56:36
The idea was it could restore some subacromial
56:38
height and facilitate therapy. But... As we've
56:41
highlighted, the more recent conflicting evidence,
56:44
particularly regarding its questionable impact
56:46
on radiographic progression and perhaps lower
56:48
functional outcomes, coupled with that non -negligible
56:51
complication risk, makes its precise role in
56:54
the decision pathway much more debated now and
56:57
probably quite surgeon dependent. It's fair to
57:00
say it's a procedure where the clinical indication
57:02
is currently undergoing significant reevaluation
57:05
based on this evolving data. That's a really
57:08
important point of nuance to understand. What
57:10
about the more involved transfers then? When
57:12
do they come in? The tendon transfers are typically
57:15
reserved for those younger, more active patients
57:17
who have specific, significant functional deficits
57:21
resulting from chronic irreparable tears, but
57:23
crucially, who have minimal or no arthritis.
57:26
The choice of which transfer to perform is dictated
57:29
primarily by the location of the irreparable
57:31
tear and the resulting functional loss. So, latissimus
57:36
dorsi, or perhaps the lapiscopal modification,
57:38
for posterior superior tears, where there's significant
57:41
external rotation weakness, provided that the
57:44
subscapularis at the front is intact and functional.
57:47
Pectoralis major, or maybe minor, transfer for
57:50
androsuperior tears, causing internal rotation
57:53
weakness, provided the posterior cuff is intact.
57:56
But remember, these are generally considered
57:58
salvage procedures for severe functional loss,
58:01
not routine operations. And the graft augmentation
58:04
or the SCR procedure, where do they fit? Grafts
58:07
used for augmentation or interposition are options
58:09
when there's a large tissue defect, potentially
58:11
to improve the outcomes of impartial repair or
58:14
to bridge a gap that simply can't be closed otherwise.
58:16
Superior Captular Reconstruction, SCR, is a much
58:19
more specific reconstructive technique. It's
58:21
typically considered for younger, non -arthritic
58:23
patients who have massive postural superior tears
58:26
where the humeral head is reducible but demonstrably
58:29
unstable superiorly. It's a complex procedure
58:32
aimed squarely at restoring that superior stability.
58:35
And finally, the RTSA, the reverse replacement.
58:40
The first total shoulder arthroplasty is often
58:41
the go -to or perhaps the default option for
58:44
patients who have that combination of significant
58:46
osteoarthritis and an irreparable tear -the -cuffed
58:49
tear -arthropathy patients. Or for older patients
58:52
who present with a true pseudo -paralytic shoulder
58:54
and aren't really suitable candidates for transfers
58:56
or other reconstructive procedures. It's also
58:59
used when other surgical options have failed.
59:01
Its main strength, as we said, is reliably restoring
59:04
elevation, particularly in the presence of arthritis,
59:07
but that higher potential complication rate always
59:09
has to be factored into the decision -making
59:11
and patient selection process. So you can see
59:14
the surgeon is essentially weighing up the patient's
59:16
age, their functional goals, their overall health,
59:19
the specific anatomy and muscle quality relating
59:21
to the tear, the presence and severity of any
59:23
arthritis, and then the relative risks and benefits
59:25
of each potential procedure. They're moving along
59:28
this continuum from simple interventions towards
59:30
more complex ones, really aiming to match the
59:33
right solution to that individual patient specific
59:35
problem. It's truly a complex puzzle, isn't it?
59:38
It requires such a deep understanding of both
59:40
the pathology itself and all the available tools
59:43
in the surgical toolbox, as you've so clearly
59:45
laid out for us. Absolutely. And the literature
59:48
really reflects this complexity. The ongoing
59:50
research, as we saw very clearly with the differing
59:53
findings on the subacromial spacer, continues
59:55
to refine our understanding of which procedure
59:58
works best for which patient and under exactly
1:00:00
what circumstances. The challenge, really, of
1:00:03
selecting the correct indication for each procedure
1:00:06
remains absolutely paramount in this field. Well,
1:00:09
what a comprehensive deep dive into a really
1:00:11
challenging area of orthopedics. So just wrapping
1:00:13
this all up and perhaps thinking about the future.
1:00:16
Given the variable outcomes we've heard about
1:00:18
for some procedures and that crucial need for
1:00:20
meticulous patient selection and surgical technique,
1:00:23
how might future innovations potentially move
1:00:25
beyond the current strategies of compensation
1:00:27
and reconstruction? Could we perhaps look towards
1:00:30
more predictable long -term solutions or even
1:00:33
biological regeneration for patients who are
1:00:36
facing these complex irreparable tiers? Ah, that's
1:00:39
the really compelling question, isn't it? That's
1:00:40
what drives the continued research in this field.
1:00:43
Will we see perhaps more effective biological
1:00:46
scaffolds that truly integrate with the host
1:00:48
tissue and actively promote healing? Will advances
1:00:52
in things like gene therapy or the use of specific
1:00:55
growth factors help us to improve muscle quality
1:00:58
before or after surgery? Or will entirely new
1:01:01
biomechanical solutions emerge that we haven't
1:01:04
even thought of yet? It's certainly an exciting
1:01:06
frontier to watch. A fascinating thought to leave
1:01:08
us with. Thank you so much for guiding us through
1:01:11
this really intricate topic today. It's been
1:01:13
my pleasure. And if you, listening, found this
1:01:16
deep dive valuable, please do take just a moment
1:01:18
to rate and perhaps share the show with someone
1:01:21
else who might benefit from a clear evidence
1:01:23
-based look at complex topics like this one.
1:01:26
It really helps us to bring more insights like
1:01:28
these to you.