Scholarlink

Hypothesis/background <p>Both partial rotator cuff repair (PRCR) and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) are frequently performed arthroscopically to treat non-pseudoparalytic massive irreparable rotator cuff tears (MIRCT). The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of PRCR and superior capsular reconstruction using tensor fascia latae autografts (SCRTF) in the treatment of non-pseudoparalytic MIRCT. The hypothesis was that both techniques would yield improved postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes with no significant difference between techniques.</p> Methods <p>This retrospective comparative study included 40 patients (20 PRCR, 20 SCRTF) operated between 2017-2021. All patients were non-pseudoparalytic with at Goutallier grade 3 or greater fatty degeneration. Exclusion criteria were glenohumeral arthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, and pseudoparalysis. Clinical outcomes were assessed with VAS, ASES, and qDASH scores. Radiologic evaluation included measurement of the acromiohumeral distance (AHD). Pre- and postoperative values were compared within and between groups at a minimum of 32 months of follow-up.</p> Results <p>Both groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in VAS, ASES, qDASH, and AHD compared with baseline (<i>p</i>&lt;0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between PRCR and SCRTF in clinical or radiological outcomes (<i>p</i>&gt;0.05). Complications occurred in 3 patients (15%) in the SCRTF group (2 graft-site hematomas, one muscle herniation), whereas no complications were reported in the PRCR group; this difference was not statistically significant (<i>p</i>=0.23).</p> Conclusion <p>Both PRCR and SCRTF provide satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes in the treatment of non-pseudoparalytic MIRCT. While SCRTF carries a risk of graft-related complications, the overall effectiveness of both techniques appears comparable. For this reason, there might be no necessity to perform SCRTF in the treatment of non-pseudoparalytic MIRCT. Careful patient selection remains critical in optimizing outcomes.</p> Level of evidence <p>Level III, retrospective comparative study.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Partial repair versus superior capsular reconstruction: comparable mid-term outcomes in non-pseudoparalytic massive irreparable rotator cuff tears

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月20日

查看全文
  • Berhan Bayram,
  • Muge Kirac,
  • Tahir Koray Yozgatli,
  • Alper Gamli,
  • Arel Gereli,
  • Baris Kocaoglu

摘要

Hypothesis/background

Both partial rotator cuff repair (PRCR) and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) are frequently performed arthroscopically to treat non-pseudoparalytic massive irreparable rotator cuff tears (MIRCT). The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of PRCR and superior capsular reconstruction using tensor fascia latae autografts (SCRTF) in the treatment of non-pseudoparalytic MIRCT. The hypothesis was that both techniques would yield improved postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes with no significant difference between techniques.

Methods

This retrospective comparative study included 40 patients (20 PRCR, 20 SCRTF) operated between 2017-2021. All patients were non-pseudoparalytic with at Goutallier grade 3 or greater fatty degeneration. Exclusion criteria were glenohumeral arthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, and pseudoparalysis. Clinical outcomes were assessed with VAS, ASES, and qDASH scores. Radiologic evaluation included measurement of the acromiohumeral distance (AHD). Pre- and postoperative values were compared within and between groups at a minimum of 32 months of follow-up.

Results

Both groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in VAS, ASES, qDASH, and AHD compared with baseline (p<0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between PRCR and SCRTF in clinical or radiological outcomes (p>0.05). Complications occurred in 3 patients (15%) in the SCRTF group (2 graft-site hematomas, one muscle herniation), whereas no complications were reported in the PRCR group; this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.23).

Conclusion

Both PRCR and SCRTF provide satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes in the treatment of non-pseudoparalytic MIRCT. While SCRTF carries a risk of graft-related complications, the overall effectiveness of both techniques appears comparable. For this reason, there might be no necessity to perform SCRTF in the treatment of non-pseudoparalytic MIRCT. Careful patient selection remains critical in optimizing outcomes.

Level of evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.