Management of Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: Superior Capsular Reconstruction vs. Marginal Convergence (236)
Authors: Patel Neel , Wagala Nyaluma , Como Christopher , Lesniak Bryson , Lin Albert 
Published: October 2021

Objectives: Irreparable rotator cuff tears can be challenging to manage in younger patients who are not well indicated for reverse total shoulder replacement. Treatment options in this patient population include both marginal convergence (MC) and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR). While both treatment options have demonstrated good short term outcomes, they have vastly different associated costs and operative times. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare range of motion (ROM), patient reported outcomes, and re-operation rates following MC and SCR. We hypothesized that SCR would outperform MC regarding functional and subjective outcomes. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 44 patients from two surgeons with irreparable rotator cuff tears that underwent either MC (28 patients, 28 shoulders) or SCR (16 patients, 16 shoulders) from 2014-2019 at a single academic center. Patient inclusion criteria were the following: failed conservative or prior surgical management, no or mild glenohumeral arthritis, Goutallier grade 3 or 4 fatty infiltration of the involved muscles, Hamada grade 1 or 2 rotator cuff arthropathy, intact or repairable subscapularis tear and minimum of 1 year follow-up. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, active forward flexion (FF) and external rotation (ER) range of motion, reoperation rate, and rate of conversion to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty were evaluated. For statistical analysis, t-tests were used to determine differences in functional outcomes and VAS, while Chi-Squared tests were used to determine differences in the rate of re-operation and conversion to arthroplasty (*p < 0.05). Results: The mean age at the time of surgery for the MC and SCR groups was 64.4 and 58.5 years, respectively, with an average follow-up of 31.5 months for the MC group and 17.8 months for the SCR group. There were no significant differences in the mean age at the time of surgery, gender, body mass index, pre-operative FF and ER, and pre-operative VAS between the groups. The MC group did not have a significant improvement FF with a mean pre-operative FF of 144.4°(range: 30-170°) and post-operative FF of 150.5°(range: 90-180). The same was true for the SCR group, with a mean pre-operative FF 127.5°(range: 40-170°) and post-operative FF of 146.3°(range: 40-170). There was also no significant improvement in ER post-operatively in either group. Both the MC and SCR group had significant improvements in VAS for pain from an average of 7.3 (range: 1-10) pre-operatively to 2.5 (range: 0-10) post-operative for the MC group (p < 0.01) and from 7.3 (range: 3-10) pre-operatively to 1 (range: 0-4) post-operative for the SCR group (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the post-operative FF or ER, change in FF or ER, post-operative VAS, or change in VAS between the two treatment groups. The rate of conversion to arthroplasty was not significantly different between the groups at 3.6% for the MC group and 12.5% for the SCR group. Additionally, the overall reoperation rate was not significantly different between the MR and SCR groups at 10.7% and 12.5%, respectively. Conclusions: There were no significant differences between the MC and SCR treatment groups. While both MC and SCR were effective in improving VAS for pain, neither treatment consistently resulted in significant improvement in ROM. Further studies with long term outcomes are needed to determine if there are certain indications for which one treatment results in better outcomes.