
==== Front
Clin Shoulder Elb
Clin Shoulder Elb
CISE
Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
2383-8337
2288-8721
Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society

39138942
10.5397/cise.2024.00248
cise-2024-00248
Original Article
Comparison of clinical outcomes of anterior combined latissimus dorsi and teres major tendon transfer for anterior superior irreparable rotator cuff tear between young and elderly patients
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3169-7141
Baek Chang Hee
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2907-1940
Kim Bo Taek
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6951-6126
Kim Jung Gon
http://orcid.org/0009-0006-7426-0210
Kim Seung Jin
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yeosu Baek Hospital, Yeosu, Korea
Corresponding Author: Chang Hee Baek Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yeosu Baek Hospital, 50 Yeoseo 1-ro, Yeosu 59709, Korea Tel: +82-1877-5075, Fax: +82-61-653-3008, E-mail: Yeosubaek@gmail.com
9 2024
6 8 2024
27 3 327337
17 3 2024
7 5 2024
11 6 2024
© 2024 Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Background

Anterior combined latissimus dorsi and teres major (aLDTM) tendon transfer has shown promise as a treatment for anterior superior irreparable rotator cuff tears (ASIRCTs). Our study aimed to compare aLDTM clinical outcomes for ASIRCTs between young and elderly patients.

Methods

This retrospective study reviewed data from patients who underwent aLDTM tendon transfer for ASIRCTs with minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical evaluations included visual analog scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), active range of motion (aROM), strength, and complications. Radiologic assessments included acromiohumeral distance, Hamada classification, and integrity of transferred tendon. Patients were divided into group total (all ages), group old (≥70 years), and group young (≤60 years).

Results

A total of 123 patients were enrolled with 39 in group young (mean age, 56.6±4.9 years) and 27 in group old (mean age, 73.6±2.3 years). Postoperatively, both groups showed significant improvements in VAS, ASES, and SANE scores and improved aROM for forward elevation, abduction, and internal rotation. No significant differences in clinical coutcomes were noted between the groups. Furthermore, similar rates of complications, including retears and postoperative infections, were observed across all three groups.

Conclusions

Our study highlights the effectiveness of aLDTM transfer for ASIRCTs with minimal glenohumeral arthritis, demonstrating similar outcomes in both group young and group old patients. Moreover, patients in these distinct age groups showed comparable clinical results when compared to group total.

Level of evidence

III.

Rotator cuff tear
Irreparable rotator cuff tear
Tendon Transfer
Latissimus dorsi and teres major tendon transfer
Massive rotator cuff tear
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Anterior superior irreparable rotator cuff tears (ASIRCTs) present a difficult challenge, particularly among younger patients with high functional demands and active elderly individuals requiring joint integrity maintenance. Several different treatment options are available, including arthroscopic partial repair, superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), pectoralis major (PM) or minor (Pm) tendon transfer, isolated latissimus dorsi (LD) tendon transfer, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) [1-8]. Anterior combined latissimus dorsi and teres major (aLDTM) tendon transfer has resulted in promising clinical outcomes, restoring transverse force coupling and utilizing the synergetic strength of both muscles [9]. The aLDTM tendon transfer promotes a humeral head pull-down effect and establishes a robust line of pull, thereby effectively facilitating the restoration of both strength and active range of motion (aROM) [9-11].

Despite the growing evidence supporting tendon transfer surgeries around the shoulder for irreparable rotator cuff tears (IRCTs) with intact articular cartilage, the effect of age on the outcomes of these procedures has not been thoroughly assessed. This knowledge gap is particularly striking given the divergent indications and varying preferences among surgeons. Most published studies have focused on young and active patients; the effectiveness of tendon transfer in elderly patients has been relatively ignored [12-14]. However, a recent study by Kany et al. [15] demonstrated the efficacy of posterior latissimus dorsi transfer for posterior superior IRCTs (PSIRCTs) in elderly patients. This study has broadened our insights into the indications for tendon transfer surgery, particularly regarding age. However, this study was a rarity; the effectiveness of aLDTM for ASIRCTs in elderly patients is largely unknown. Therefore, the primary objective of our study was to compare and report the outcomes of aLDTM tendon transfer for ASIRCTs in young and old patients. Group young patients were 60 years or younger, and group old patients were 70 years or older. We hypothesized that the clinical outcomes of LDTM transfer are similar between group young and group old.

METHODS

The current study is a retrospective single-center comparative case series, and the study was approved by Institutional Review Board of Yeosu Baek Hospital (No. P01-202310-01-067). Due to the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of additional discomfort to patients, the requirement for informed consent was waived.

Patient Selection

A retrospective review of data from patients who underwent aLDTM tendon transfer between June 2016 and February 2022 was conducted. The study included patients who underwent aLDTM for ASIRCTs with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Indications for aLDTM tendon transfer in ASIRCT included persistent pain and/or loss of shoulder function, minimal to no glenohumeral arthritis (Hamada [16] classification grade ≤2) (Fig. 1A), preoperatively confirmed IRCTs involving both the subscapularis and supraspinatus tendons (Goutallier [17] fatty infiltration grade ≥3 on MRI) (Fig. 1B and C), and intraoperatively confirmed presence of intact infraspinatus and teres minor tendons. Exclusion criteria included patients with unavailability for clinical assessment both preoperatively and at final follow-up, less than the minimum follow-up period of 2 years, and loss of follow-up. The patients who met these conditions were then categorized into three groups: group total (all ages), group old (aged 70 years and above), and group young (aged 60 years and below) (Fig. 2).

Surgical Procedure

All surgeries were performed by a single senior surgeon (CHB) and followed the technique described by Baek et al. [18]. The patient underwent general anesthesia, and the procedure was performed in a beach chair. The procedure involved an incision extending from the coracoid process to the inferior border of the PM tendon. Following the standard deltopectoral approach, the reparability of the subscapularis was evaluated. The torn subscapularis was deemed “irreparable” and the transfer procedure began when the subscapularis could not be reduced to its original footprint on the lesser tuberosity. For the long head of the biceps tendon, soft tissue tenodesis was performed. After meticulous dissection of the upper and lower border of the PM muscle, the PM muscle was retracted with a Kolbel retractor to expose the insertion site of the LDTM tendon on the humerus. The LDTM tendon was detached as a single unit without separating the LD and TM tendons (Fig. 3A), and the edges were sutured using non-absorbable sutures in a Krakow fashion (Fig. 3B). After harvesting the LDTM tendon, surrounding adhesions were gently and carefully released using sterile gauze to prevent iatrogenic injury to the radial nerve. During this step, the surgeon carefully avoided forceful medial retraction to prevent iatrogenic injury to the radial nerve passing through the anteroinferior surface of the LDTM muscle. Additionally, sufficient release of the harvested LDTM tendon was performed to enhance tendon mobility and excursion, thereby preventing potential impingement of the axillary nerve due to the bulky volume of the combined LDTM muscle. Harvested LDTM tendon was then passed beneath the PM muscle and pulled towards the greater tuberosity (GT) of the humerus (Fig. 3C). To ensure proper tensioning, the arm was positioned in full internal rotation (IR) at a 45° abduction (ABD). The LDTM tendon was placed approximately 2 cm distal to the GT and lateral to the bicipital groove with a 4.75-mm knotless anchor (Swivelock anchor, Arthrex Inc.). For reinforcement of the attachment of the harvested LDTM tendon to the humerus, a 4.5-mm triple-loaded medial suture anchor (PEEK Corkscrew FT, Arthrex Inc.) was inserted beneath the LDTM tendon along the line of the bicipital groove. These sutures were loaded into two additional 4.75-mm knotless anchors (Swivelock anchor) that were then placed over the harvested LDTM tendon to compress this tendon against the bone. The two knotless anchors were positioned, one medial and the other lateral to the bicipital groove (Fig. 3D). In patients with osteoporotic bones, medial anchor sutures were threaded through the harvested LDTM tendon and fixed with two knotless anchors in the same fashion. A thorough assessment was performed to ensure no impingement was encountered by rotating the humerus.

Postoperative Rehabilitation

During the initial 4 weeks post-surgery, patients wore an ABD brace while maintaining an IR posture to aid in proper alignment and stability during the early healing stages. Patients were allowed intermittent movement of the elbow, wrist, and fingers while wearing the brace for daily activities. The use of the brace was discontinued after this initial 4 weeks, and patients began active-assisted range of motion (ROM) exercises to regain motion. At 3 months postoperatively, patients progressed to strengthening exercises encompassing all movement directions. However, engagement in active physical labor and sports activities was restricted until 6 months post-surgery.

Clinical Evaluation

We gathered data on age, sex, body mass index (BMI), medical comorbidities, smoking status, duration of symptoms, and follow-up. Clinical assessments included pain measurement using a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 10, shoulder function assessment using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and patient satisfaction using the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score. Shoulder aROM was measured using a goniometer, and any documented complications were recorded. Shoulder strength was assessed using a handheld dynamometer (Hoggan Health Industries) both preoperatively and postoperatively.

Radiologic Evaluation

Radiological assessments included the acromiohumeral distance (AHD) and the Hamada [16] classification system score to evaluate presence of glenohumeral joint arthritis. MRI scans were used to assess the quality of the rotator cuff muscles using the Goutallier [17] grading system. The integrity of the transferred tendon was evaluated through MRI scans (Fig. 4), with a discontinuity indicating retear, according to the criteria established by Sugaya et al. [19] in which types IV and V were considered retear due to the loss of continuity of the transferred tendon. An independent musculoskeletal radiologist, unaware of the clinical results, analyzed the MRI findings.

Statistical Analysis

Comparisons within groups for preoperative and postoperative results were performed using paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for continuous data. Chi-square and Fisher's exact test were used for categorical data assessments. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 20.0 (IBM Corp.). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the reliability of AHD and Hamada grade between two independent examiners. Mean and standard deviation values were reported for the data, and statistical significance level was set at P<0.05.

RESULTS

Comparison of Demographic Characteristics between Young and Old Age Groups

Fourteen patients were excluded due to unavailable data (n=8) and loss of follow-up (n=6), resulting in a final enrollment of 123 patients in the Group Total. Thirty-nine patients were in the group young (age ≤60 years), and 27 patients were in the group old (age ≥ 70 years). Table 1 presents the demographic and clinical characteristics of the group young and group old patients. The mean ages for these groups were 56.6±4.9 years (range, 36–60) and 73.6±2.3 years (range, 71–81), respectively. The mean follow-up durations for the two groups were not statistically different, 42.1±15.6 months (range, 24–73) and 43.9±19.8 months (range, 24–76), respectively. There were no significant differences in preoperative demographic factors between the groups, including BMI, sex, medical history, smoking status, and degree of fatty infiltration of each rotator cuff.

Clinical Results Comparison between Young and Old Age Groups

Table 2 illustrates the clinical outcomes for the group young and group old patients and the comparison between the groups. Upon comparing preoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes for each group, both demonstrated significant improvements in all clinical scores, including VAS, ASES, and SANE scores, with all P-values <0.001. Regarding aROM, both groups showed significant improvements in forward elevation (FE), ABD, and IR at the back. However, there was no significant improvement in external rotation (ER) at the side observed in either group. When assessing radiological parameters, excellent ICCs were found for AHD and Hamada classification (ICC: preoperative AHD, 0.977; final AHD, 0.977; preoperative Hamada, 0.718; and final Hamada, 0.791). Both groups showed no significant progression of arthritis. When comparing group young and group old, no significant differences were observed in VAS, ASES, and SANE scores. Similarly, there were no significant differences in aROM and radiological parameters between the groups.

Strength Comparison between Young and Old Age Groups

Table 3 presents the strength data for group young and group old and the comparison between the groups. Preoperative and postoperative strength showed significant improvements in FE, ABD, and IR at the side for both groups. Strength for ER at the side slightly improved, but the degree of improvement did not reach significance for either group. When comparing between the groups, preoperative strengths for all directions except for ER at the side were significantly higher in the group young than in the group old, with all P-values <0.001. Similarly, postoperative strengths were significantly higher in the group young than in the group old in all directions except for ER at the side. However, the comparison of the delta values, the difference between the preoperative and postoperative values, for each direction between the groups showed no significant differences (FE, P=0.222; ABD, P=0.285; ER at the side, P=0.861; and IR at the side, P=0.060).

Clinical Results and Complications Compared to Group Total

Table 4 presents the comparisons between group total and group young and between group total and group old. No significant differences in demographic information were observed except for the age difference. When comparing group young and group old to the entire cohort, both exhibited comparable results. No significant differences were observed in VAS, ASES, and SANE scores. For both group young and group old, aROM showed no significant difference when compared to the entire cohort. Also, radiological assessments, including AHD and Hamada classification, were similar between group young and group old and the entire cohort.

Table 5 shows rates of complications in all three groups. Re-tear and postoperative infection rates were similar in all three groups. Both group young and group old had one patient requiring revision LDTM surgery due to retear of the transferred tendon. One patient in group young and two patients in group old required conversion to RTSA due to advanced osteoarthritis and retear.

DISCUSSION

In the current study, the transfer of the aLDTM exhibited promising results. Pain alleviation, clinical scores, aROM, and radiological assessments were comparable between group old and group young. Additionally, both groups demonstrated parallel enhancements in strength and similar complication rates. Notably, the clinical outcomes in both groups were similar to those in group total.

ASIRCTs present a formidable challenge in terms of treatment options [20]. Various approaches have been explored, including arthroscopic debridement; partial repair; SCR; PM and Pm transfers; LD transfer; and, as a last resort, RTSA [1-5,8,12]. Arthroscopic debridement and partial repair offer limited long-term strength restoration [4,21]. SCR has shown suboptimal clinical outcomes and high retear rate and has not been suitable in cases of irreparable subscapularis tear [22-24]. The utilization of PM transfer is limited by its distinct anatomical force vector compared to the subscapularis, but Pm transfer has force vector similarity to the subscapularis [5,25]. Both PM and Pm transfers and LD transfer are options for managing irreparable subscapularis tears but are less suitable for cases involving concomitant irreparable supraspinatus tears [5,14,25]. RTSA is the final recourse, entails joint sacrifices, and is fraught with limited longevity and implant-associated complication issues [26-29]. Recently, aLDTM transfer has demonstrated favorable outcomes in ASIRCT patients [9]. The aLDTM tendon introduces a humeral head pull-down effect, mitigating arthritic progression and establishing a robust line of pull. This effectively facilitates the restoration of both strength and aROM [9-11]. A recent study by Baek et al. [30] demonstrated an average 11.4% volumetric increment in transferred LDTM muscle one year postoperatively that correlated with improved clinical outcomes and enhanced strength.

Despite the mounting evidence supporting aLDTM transfer, the effectiveness of this procedure in the elderly had not been demonstrated. In general, many studies compared the effectiveness of surgical procedures such as arthroscopic partial repair, SCR, and RTSA in young and old patients [31-33]. However, studies of tendon transfers in the elderly are notably lacking. Surgeons often have a preference regarding age in shoulder tendon transfers; these procedures are predominantly focused on younger, more active patient cohorts [6,12,13,15]. However, Kany et al. [15] conducted a comparative study between two patient groups, one comprising 31 patients younger than 55 years (mean age, 52) and one comprising 31 patients older than 75 years (mean age, 77), who underwent posterior LD transfer for PSIRCTs. Kany et al. [15] reported no significant differences in clinical scores between the two groups, suggesting that posterior LD transfer could be an effective surgical option for patients older than 75. Similarly, our study included relatively young and old groups. Mean age was 56.6 years for our group young (n=39 patients 60 years or younger) and 73.6 years for our group old (n=27 patients 70 years or older). Despite no demographic disparities, both groups yielded comparable results in pain relief, clinical scores, aROM, and radiological outcomes. In terms of strength, group young patients were stronger in FE, ABD, and IR preoperatively, likely due to age differences. However, the improvement range in strengths showed no statistical differences between group young and group old. The strength of ER at the side for both groups was slightly improved, but the differences were not statistically significant. These results suggest that aLDTM transfer could be as effective in elderly as in younger patients, challenging the notion that the procedure should be limited to the young and active.

This study had several limitations. The relatively small sample sizes (group young n=39 and group old n=27) are notable. This limitation stemmed from the inherent challenge of identifying patients with ASIRCTs and intact cartilage who meet the specific criteria for our aLDTM transfer in an outpatient clinic setting. This recruitment challenge imposes constraints on the generalizability of our findings. Additionally, our follow-up duration (average of 42.1±15.6 months for group young and average of 43.9±19.8 months for group old) is relatively short. Extended follow-up periods are crucial for comprehensive evaluation of the long-term efficacy and potential complications associated with aLDTM transfer. Another limitation of this study is that we did not assess data on pseudoparalysis, internal rotation lag sign, and subscapularis function tests such as lift-off, bear hug, and belly press tests. Last, the absence of multiple regression analysis in our study serves as a limitation. This analysis would have allowed us to explore the relationship between preoperative conditions and postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underscores the efficacy of aLDTM transfer for ASIRCTs with minimal glenohumeral arthritis, and we have demonstrated comparable outcomes in group young (age ≤60 years) and group old (age ≥70 years) patients. Furthermore, the two distinct age groups did not exhibit significantly different clinical results when compared to group total (all patients). These findings enhance our understanding of the versatility of aLDTM transfer across varying age demographics, highlighting its potential as a viable treatment option for a wider spectrum of patients.

Fig. 1. Preoperative radiograph and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). (A) Preoperative radiograph of the left shoulder shows minimal glenohumeral arthritis. (B) Axial view of MRI of the left shoulder shows retracted torn subscapularis (arrow). (C) Sagittal view of MRI shows high fatty infiltration and atrophy in both the subscapularis (SSC) and supraspinatus (SSP) muscles.

Fig. 2. Flowchart. aLDTM: anterior combined latissimus dorsi and teres major, ASIRCT: anterior superior irreparable rotator cuff tear, IRCT: irreparable rotator cuff tear, SSC: subscapularis, SSP: supraspinatus, NA: not available, FU: follow-up, MRI: magnetic resonance image.

Fig. 3. Intraoperative image. (A) Using a lever retractor, the pectoralis major (PM) muscle (blue asterisk) is elevated and latissimus dorsi and teres major (LDTM) tendon (white asterisk) is detached from the humerus and secured with two long forceps. (B) While the PM muscle (blue asterisk) is being reflected, the harvested LDTM tendon (white asterisk) is secured using a Krakow suture. (C) The prepared LDTM tendon is delivered beneath the PM muscle (blue asterisk). (D) Final appearance of the LDTM tendon (white asterisk) transfer being placed laterally and beyond the bicipital groove (blue arrow).

Fig. 4. Postoperative magnetic resonance image (MRI) of the transferred latissimus dorsi and teres major (LDTM) tendon. Postoperative MRI of left shoulder shows normal integrity of transferred LDTM tendon (white asterisks) in oblique coronal view (A) and in oblique axial view (B).

Table 1. Demographics

Variable	Group young (n=39)	Group old (n=27)	P-value	
Age (yr)	56.6±4.9 (36–60)	73.6±2.3 (71–81)	<0.001*	
BMI (kg/m2)	24.5±2.2	23.5±2.9	0.115	
Follow-up period (mo)	42.1±15.6 (24–73)	43.9±19.8 (24–76)	0.679	
Symptom duration (mo)	12.1±4.3 (7–23)	13.6±4.9 (6–24)	0.191	
Sex (male:female)	26 (66.6):13 (33.3)	17 (62.9):10 (37.0)	0.761	
Dominant arm involvement	31 (79.4):8 (20.5)	22(81.4):5(18.5)	0.844	
Prior rotator cuff repair surgery	5 (12.8)	2 (7.4)	0.490	
HTN	4 (10.2)	6 (22.2)	0.157	
DM	12 (30.7)	13 (48.1)	0.188	
Smoker	5 (12.8)	3 (11.1)	0.837	
Preoperative SSC FI grade			0.755	
 Grade 3	13 (33.3)	8 (29.6)		
 Grade 4	26 (66.6)	19 (70.3)		
Preoperative SSP FI grade			0.410	
 Grade 3	17 (43.5)	9 (33.3)		
 Grade 4	22 (56.4)	18 (66.6)		
Preoperative ISP FI grade			0.755	
 Grade 0 or 1	29 (74.3)	21 (77.7)		
 Grade 2	10 (25.6)	6 (22.2)		
Preoperative Tm FI grade			0.625	
 Grade 0 or 1	33 (84.6)	24 (88.8)		
 Grade 2	6 (15.3)	3 (11.1)		
Values are presented as mean±SD (range), mean±SD, or number (%). Group young: age ≤60 years, Group old: age ≥71 years.

BMI: body mass index, HTN: hypertension, DM: diabetes mellitus, SSC: subscapularis, FI: fatty infiltration, SSP: supraspinatus, ISP: infraspinatus, Tm: teres minor, SD: standard deviation.

* Significant P-value <0.05.

Table 2. Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between group young and group old

Variable	Group young (n=39)	P-valuea)	Group old (n=27)	P-valuea)	P-valueb)	
VAS pain score		<0.001*		<0.001*		
  Preoperative	4.7±1.3		4.6±1.5		0.855	
  Postoperative	1.6±1.1		1.7±1.4		0.815	
ASES score		<0.001*		<0.001*		
  Preoperative	49.3±10.4		48.5±11.4		0.765	
  Postoperative	73.7±15.1		70.8±14.5		0.442	
SANE score		<0.001*		<0.001*		
  Preoperative	50.4±8.4		49.7±10.5		0.768	
  Postoperative	73.8±16.4		71.0±15.2		0.488	
Active ROM						
 FE (°)		<0.001*		<0.001*		
  Preoperative	105±16		100±19		0.332	
  Postoperative	150±23		147±24		0.681	
 ABD (°)		<0.001*		<0.001*		
  Preoperative	84±17		82±18		0.723	
  Postoperative	129±25		124±24		0.406	
 ER at side (°)		0.622		0.339		
  Preoperative	46±9		44±7		0.582	
  Postoperative	44±13		47±11		0.383	
 IR at backc)		<0.001*		<0.001*		
  Preoperative	3.5±2.1		3.8±1.9		0.564	
  Postoperative	6.4±2.4		6.2±2.6		0.700	
AHD		0.278		0.150		
  Preoperative	8.0±1.8		8.3±1.7		0.474	
  Postoperative	7.6±1.8		7.8±1.6		0.575	
Hamada		0.599		0.425		
  Preoperative	1.2±0.4		1.1±0.3		0.562	
  Postoperative	1.2±0.4		1.2±0.4		0.755	
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. Group young: age ≤60 years, Group old: age ≥71 years.

VAS: visual analog scale, ASES: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, SANE: Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, ROM: range of motion, FE: forward elevation, ABD: abduction, ER: external rotation, IR: internal rotation, AHD: acromiohumeral distance.

a) Compared between preoperative and postoperative;

b) Compared between young and old groups;

c) Internal rotation was measured as the level that could be reached by the thumb: 0, greater trochanter; 2, buttock; 4, lumbosacral junction; 6, L3; 8, T12; and 10, T7.

* Significant P-value <0.05.

Table 3. Comparison of strength between group young and group old

Variable	Group young (n=39)	P-valuea)	Group old (n=27)	P-valuea)	P-valueb)	
Strength (N)						
 FE		<0.001*		<0.001*		
  Preoperative	18.6±6.1		12.9±4.2		<0.001*	
  Postoperative	31.9±8.3		23.7±7.5		<0.001*	
  Δ Delta	13.3±7.2		10.8±9.4		0.222	
 ABD		<0.001*		<0.001*		
  Preoperative	14.2±4.7		10.6±3.4		<0.001*	
  Postoperative	26.3±7.4		20.8±5.1		0.002*	
  Δ Delta	12.1±6.7		10.2±7.0		0.285	
 ER at side		0.093		0.105		
  Preoperative	25.1±5.7		22.3±6.1		0.061	
  Postoperative	27.0±8.4		24.5±7.5		0.149	
  Δ Delta	1.9±6.8		2.2±6.8		0.861	
 IR at side		<0.001*		<0.001*		
  Preoperative	17.9±6.2		11.9±4.0		<0.001*	
  Postoperative	35.3±9.1		25.2±6.6		<0.001*	
  Δ Delta	17.4±9.0		13.3±7.9		0.060	
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. Group young: age ≤60 years, Group old: age ≥71 years.

FE: forward elevation, ABD: abduction, ER: external rotation, IR: internal rotation.

a) Compared between preoperative and postoperative;

b) Compared between young and old groups.

* Significant P-value <0.05.

Table 4. Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between young and old groups in relation to total group

Variable	Total (n=123)	Young group (n=39)	P-valuea)	Old group (n=27)	P-valueb)	
VAS pain score						
  Preoperative	4.8±1.2	4.7±1.3	0.604	4.6±1.5	0.529	
  Postoperative	1.7±1.1	1.6±1.1	0.997	1.7±1.4	0.976	
ASES score						
  Preoperative	49.5±10.3	49.3±10.4	0.916	48.5±11.4	0.769	
  Postoperative	74.3±13.5	73.7±15.1	0.600	70.8±14.5	0.182	
SANE score						
  Preoperative	50.4±9.1	50.4±8.4	0.958	49.7±10.5	0.836	
  Postoperative	74.6±13.9	73.8±16.4	0.635	71.0±15.2	0.190	
Active ROM						
 FE (°)						
  Preoperative	104±17	105±16	0.998	100±19	0.573	
  Postoperative	147±25	150±23	0.518	147±24	0.840	
 ABD (°)						
  Preoperative	84±17	84±17	0.998	82±18	0.896	
  Postoperative	123±26	129±25	0.112	124±24	0.612	
 ER at side (°)						
  Preoperative	47±9	46±9	0.321	44±7	0.152	
  Postoperative	47±11	44±13	0.260	47±11	0.915	
 IR at backc)						
  Preoperative	3.9±2.2	3.5±2.1	0.065	3.8±1.9	0.313	
  Postoperative	6.4±2.3	6.4±2.4	0.997	6.2±2.6	0.901	
AHD						
  Preoperative	8.1±1.7	8.0±1.8	0.970	8.3±1.7	0.836	
  Postoperative	7.8±1.8	7.6±1.8	0.740	7.8±1.6	0.997	
Hamada						
  Preoperative	1.1±0.3	1.2±0.4	0.928	1.1±0.3	0.951	
  Postoperative	1.2±0.4	1.2±0.4	0.746	1.2±0.4	0.952	
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. Group total: entire population, Group young: age ≤60 years, Group old: age ≥71 years.

VAS: visual analog scale, ASES: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, SANE: Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, ROM: range of motion, FE: forward elevation, ABD: abduction, ER: external rotation, IR: internal rotation, AHD: acromiohumeral distance.

a) Compared between total and young groups;

b) Compared between total and old groups;

c) Internal rotation was measured as the level that could be reached by the thumb: 0, greater trochanter; 2, buttock; 4, lumbosacral junction; 6, L3; 8, T12; and 10, T7.

Table 5. Complications

Variable	Total group (n=123)	Young group (n=39)	Old group (n=27)	
Retear	10 (8.1)	3 (7.7)	3 (11.1)	
Postoperative infection	2 (1.6)	1 (2.5)	1 (3.7)	
Revision Surgery	5 (4.1)	1 (2.5)	1 (3.7)	
Conversion to PM transfer	1 (0.8)	0	0	
Conversion to RTSA	5 (4.1)	1 (2.5)	2 (7.4)	
Values are presented as number (%).

PM: pectoralis major, RTSA: reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: CHB, BTK, JGK. Data curation: CHB, BTK, SJK. Formal analysis: BTK, JGK, SJK. Investigation: BTK, JGK. Methodology: CHB, BTK, JGK, SJK. Project administration: CHB. Supervision: CHB. Validation: CHB, JGK, SJK. Visualization: CHB, BTK. Writing – original draft: CHB, BTK. Writing – review & editing: CHB, BTK.

Conflict of interest

None.

Funding

None.

Data availability

Contact the corresponding author for data availability.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express gratitude to Seung Hak Choi for help in collecting clinical data.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

1 Oh JH Park MS Rhee SM Treatment strategy for irreparable rotator cuff tears Clin Orthop Surg 2018 10 119 34 29854334
2 Cvetanovich GL Waterman BR Verma NN Romeo AA Management of the irreparable rotator cuff tear J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2019 27 909 17 31206436
3 Lapner P Henry P Athwal GS Treatment of rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2022 31 e120 9 34906681
4 Di Benedetto ED Di Benedetto P Fiocchi A Beltrame A Causero A Partial repair in irreparable rotator cuff tear: our experience in long-term follow-up Acta Biomed 2017 88 69 74
5 Sánchez Carbonel JF Hinz M Lozano C Kleim BD Imhoff AB Siebenlist S Pectoralis major and pectoralis minor transfer for irreparable subscapularis tendon tears Oper Orthop Traumatol 2022 34 45 54 35113176
6 Mun SW Kim JY Yi SH Baek CH Latissimus dorsi transfer for irreparable subscapularis tendon tears J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018 27 1057 64 29398397
7 Luo Z Lin J Sun Y Zhu K Wang C Chen J Outcome comparison of latissimus dorsi transfer and pectoralis major transfer for irreparable subscapularis tendon tear: a systematic review Am J Sports Med 2022 50 2032 41 34138660
8 Werthel JD Vigan M Schoch B Superior capsular reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2021 107 103072 34560311
9 Baek CH Kim JG Baek GR Outcomes of combined anterior latissimus dorsi and teres major tendon transfer for irreparable anterosuperior rotator cuff tears J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2022 31 2298 307 35550431
10 Baek GR Kim JG Kwak D Biomechanical comparison of combined latissimus dorsi and teres major tendon transfer vs. latissimus dorsi tendon transfer in shoulders with irreparable anterosuperior rotator cuff tears J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2023 32 703 12 36529382
11 Elhassan B Christensen TJ Wagner ER Feasibility of latissimus and teres major transfer to reconstruct irreparable subscapularis tendon tear: an anatomic study J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014 23 492 9 24076001
12 Li X Galvin JW Zalneraitis BH Muscle tendon transfers around the shoulder: diagnosis, treatment, surgical techniques, and outcomes J Bone Joint Surg Am 2022 104 833 50 35213452
13 Elhassan BT Sanchez-Sotelo J Wagner ER Outcome of arthroscopically assisted lower trapezius transfer to reconstruct massive irreparable posterior-superior rotator cuff tears J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020 29 2135 42 32573447
14 Elhassan BT Wagner ER Kany J Latissimus dorsi transfer for irreparable subscapularis tear J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020 29 2128 34 32573448
15 Kany J Sekakaran P Amavarathi RS Posterior latissimus dorsi transfer for massive irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears: does it work in the elderly population? A comparative study between 2 age groups (≤55 vs. ≥75 years old) J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2021 30 641 51 32650083
16 Hamada K Fukuda H Mikasa M Kobayashi Y Roentgenographic findings in massive rotator cuff tears: a long-term observation Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990 254 92 6
17 Goutallier D Postel JM Bernageau J Lavau L Voisin MC Fatty muscle degeneration in cuff ruptures: pre- and postoperative evaluation by CT scan Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994 304 78 83 8020238
18 Baek CH Kim BT Kim JG Combined anterior latissimus dorsi and teres major tendon transfer (aLDTM) for irreparable anterosuperior rotator cuff tears JBJS Essent Surg Tech 2024 14 e23.00060
19 Sugaya H Maeda K Matsuki K Moriishi J Repair integrity and functional outcome after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair: a prospective outcome study J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007 89 953 60 17473131
20 Cartucho A Tendon transfers for massive rotator cuff tears EFORT Open Rev 2022 7 404 13 35638644
21 Ishigaki N Hata Y Matsuba T Hino M Murakami N Kobayashi H Long-term results of partial repair for irreparable rotator cuff tear JSES Int 2021 5 642 8 34223409
22 Ganokroj P Peebles AM Vopat ML Provencher MT Superior capsular reconstruction for irreparable rotator cuff tear Clin Sports Med 2023 42 109 24 36375864
23 Baek CH Lim C Kim JG Superior capsular reconstruction versus lower trapezius transfer for posterosuperior irreparable rotator cuff tears with high-grade fatty infiltration in the infraspinatus Am J Sports Med 2022 50 1938 47 35536232
24 Baek CH Kim BT Kim JG Kim SJ Mid-term outcome of superior capsular reconstruction using fascia lata autograft (at least 6 mm in thickness) results in high retear rate and no improvement in muscle strength Arthroscopy 2024 40 1961 71 1 37146662
25 Reid JJ Garrigues GE Friedman RJ Eichinger JK Irreparable subscapularis tears: current tendon transfer options Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2024 17 68 75 38182803
26 Di Martino A Pederiva D Bordini B What is the middle term survival of reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A retrospective observational registry-based study Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2023 33 2639 44 36790449
27 Burden EG Batten TJ Smith CD Evans JP Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty Bone Joint J 2021 103 813 21 33616421
28 Ajibade DA Yin CX Hamid HS Wiater BP Martusiewicz A Wiater JM Stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2022 31 1083 95 35051541
29 Jauregui JJ Nadarajah V Shield WP Henn RF Gilotra M Hasan SA Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: perioperative considerations and complications JBJS Rev 2018 6 e3
30 Baek CH Kim BT Kim JG Kim SJ Increased latissimus dorsi and teres major muscle volume after anterior transfer for irreparable anterior superior rotator cuff tear: correlation with improved internal rotation strength Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2024 144 1491 502 38316700
31 Green A Loyd K Molino J Evangelista P Gallacher S Adkins J Long-term functional and structural outcome of rotator cuff repair in patients 60 years old or less JSES Int 2023 7 58 66 36820436
32 Deliso M Baskar S Gencarelli P Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for younger patients: a comparable analysis of patients older and younger than 65 years J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2023 7 e22.00264
33 Kholinne E Kwak JM Cho CH Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction for older patients with irreparable rotator cuff tears: a comparative study with younger patients Am J Sports Med 2021 49 2751 9 34264134
