Effects of arthroscopic vs. mini-open rotator cuff repair on function, pain & range of motion. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Biceps tenotomy vs. tenodesis in patients undergoing transtendinous repair of partial thickness rotator cuff tears

Background

Patients with partial thickness rotator cuff tears (PTRCTs) often present with concurrent pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT). To address both conditions simultaneously, long head of the biceps (LHB) tenotomy or tenodesis can be performed at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR). This study aims to compare postoperative shoulder active range of motion (AROM) and complications following transtendinous RCR with concurrent LHB tenodesis or tenotomy.

Methods

A total of 90 patients with PTRCTs met inclusion criteria for this study. Patients who underwent tear-completion-and-repair, revision surgery, or open repair of the LHB tendon were excluded. Patients were stratified into tenotomy, arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis, or no biceps operation cohorts and were propensity matched 1:1:1 on age, sex, body mass index, and smoking status. Primary outcome measures included AROM in forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. The development of severe stiffness and rates of rotator cuff retear at final follow-up were recorded as secondary outcomes.

Results

When comparing the tenotomy and tenodesis cohorts, tenotomy patients were found to have increased AROM at 3 months in forward flexion (153.2° vs. 130.1°, P = .004), abduction (138.6° vs. 114.2°, P = .019), and external rotation (60.4° vs. 43.8°, P = .014), with differences in forward flexion remaining significant at 6 months (162.4° vs. 149.4°, P = .009). There were no significant differences in interval rates of recovery in any plane between cohorts. Additionally, there were no significant differences in rates of symptomatic retears between groups (P = .458). Rates of severe postoperative stiffness approached but did not achieve statistical significance between tenotomy (4.2%) and tenodesis (29.2%) cohorts (P = .066). Smoking status was a significant predictor of severe stiffness (odds ratio, 13.69; P = .010).

Conclusion

Despite significant differences in absolute AROM between cohorts, the decision to perform tenotomy or tenodesis was not found to differentially affect rates of AROM recovery for patients undergoing arthroscopic transtendinous RCR for PTRCT. Notably, however, transient stiffness complications were more commonly observed in smokers, and data trends suggested an increased risk of stiffness for patients undergoing LHB tenodesis. Overall, postoperative stiffness is likely multifactorial and attributable to both patient- and procedure-specific factors, and LHB tenotomy may be more appropriate for patients with risk factors for developing stiffness postoperatively.

All-arthroscopic versus mini-open double row rotator cuff repair - A prospective randomised control study based on functional and radiological outcomes

Purpose

In an era where arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is dominant in the United States (77.9 % preference) compared to open surgery (53.33 %), a shift towards minimally invasive All-Arthroscopic (AA) techniques over classical Mini-Open (MO) repair is emerging. This study explores current trends in shoulder procedures in India and compares functional outcomes and radiological repair integrity between AA and MO techniques, which are understudied in the Indian context.

Methodology

In this prospective study, 60 patients (30 in the AA group and 30 in the MO group) with rotator cuff tears underwent assessment. Pre/post-operative clinical evaluations and 12-month follow-ups using UCLA and Oxford Shoulder Score, along with preoperative MRI and postoperative USG, were conducted.

Results

At one-year follow-up, the AA group showed better functional outcomes (53.3 % excellent/good vs. 30.0 % in MO). No significant radiological differences (Sugaya grading) were found. Tear size was comparable with no association with functional/radiological outcomes.

Conclusion

The AA group demonstrated favourable functional outcomes, matched to MO group findings, which is in accordance with global studies. Despite higher costs, the increasing popularity of AA in India is justified by enhanced results and reduced postoperative discomfort.

Comparison of Early versus Traditional Rehabilitation Protocol after Rotator Cuff Repair: An Umbrella-Review

Rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair is crucial for functional recovery and for minimizing the risk of retear. There are two rehabilitation protocols (early and traditional) and the debate about which is the best is open. This umbrella review aimed to compare the effect of these rehabilitation protocols in terms of reduction in pain, functional recovery, and retear risk. We selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2012 and 2022 dealing with the aim. Nineteen systematic reviews were included. No significant differences were found between early and traditional protocols in terms of pain reduction. Early rehabilitation provided better short-term results regarding Range of Motion improvement, but long-term functional outcomes were similar. Retear risk remains a significant concern for the early protocol. We found major differences between the analyzed protocols. This review suggests that both protocols are useful to recover global shoulder function, but the standard protocol has a greater safety profile for larger tears. On the other hand, the early protocol may be preferable for smaller lesions, allowing a faster recovery and having less impact on medical costs. Further research is needed to identify optimal rehabilitation strategies tailored to the individual patient's needs and characteristics.

Present situation and development prospects of the diagnosis and treatment of rotator cuff tears

Rotator cuff tears are an important cause of shoulder pain and are caused by degeneration or trauma of the shoulder tendon at the anatomical neck of the humeral head. The understanding and research of rotator cuff tears have a history of hundreds of years, and their etiology, diagnosis, and treatment have a complete system, but some detailed rules of diagnosis and treatment still have room for development. This research paper briefly introduces the diagnosis and treatment of rotator cuff tears. The current situation and its valuable research direction are described.

Comparison of Outcomes after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair between Elderly and Younger Patient Groups: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) surgery between younger and older patients. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing outcomes between patients older than 65 to 70 years and a younger group following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and other sources for relevant studies up to 13 September 2022, and then assessed the quality of included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We used random-effects meta-analysis for data synthesis. The primary outcomes were pain and shoulder functions, while secondary outcomes included re-tear rate, shoulder range of motion (ROM), abduction muscle power, quality of life, and complications. Five non-randomized controlled trials, with 671 participants (197 older and 474 younger patients), were included. The quality of the studies was all fairly good, with NOS scores ≥ 7. The results showed no significant differences between the older and younger groups in terms of Constant score improvement, re-tear rate, or other outcomes such as pain level improvement, muscle power, and shoulder ROM. These findings suggest that ARCR surgery in older patients can achieve a non-inferior healing rate and shoulder function compared to younger patients.

Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

An all-arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ASR) may result in less postoperative pain and better functional outcomes than the mini-open (MOR) approach. This meta-analysis provides an updated assessment of the current literature which compares the clinical outcomes of mini-open versus all arthroscopic rotator cuff repair techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The main online databases were accessed in October 2021. All the trials directly comparing primary ASR versus MOR for rotator cuff rupture were accessed. Studies concerning revision settings were not eligible, nor where those combining the surgical procedures with other adjuvants.

RESULTS

A total of 21 articles were retrieved. Data from 1644 procedures (ASR = 995, MOR = 649) were collected. The mean follow-up was 26.7 (6.0-56.4) months. Comparability was found between ASR and MOR groups at baseline with regards to age (P = 0.3), gender (P = 0.7) and mean duration of the follow-up (P = 0.7). No difference was found between ASR and MOR with regard to surgical duration (P = 0.05), Constant score (P = 0.2), University of California at Los Angeles Shoulder (P = 0.3), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder (P = 0.5), VAS (P = 0.2), forward flexion (P = 0.3), abduction (P = 0.3), external rotation (P = 0.2), internal rotation (P = 0.7), re-tear (P = 0.9), adhesive capsulitis (P = 0.5).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repair result in similar clinical outcomes. Male gender and older age lead to greater rates of rotator cuff re-tears, while longer surgical duration was associated with a greater rate of adhesive capsulitis.

A Systematic Review of Long-term Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Arthroscopic and Open/Mini-open Rotator Cuff Repairs

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR) has shown similar midterm functional results and retear rates as open/mini-open rotator cuff repair (oRCR). A pooled analysis of long-term results of both techniques is yet missing.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the long-term results of aRCR and oRCR for full-thickness rotator cuff tears.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The systematic review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The CENTRAL (Cochrane), MEDLINE (PubMed), and Embase databases were searched for studies that reported on long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of full-thickness aRCR and oRCR with a minimum follow-up of 9 years.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included: 5 studies on aRCR and 6 studies on oRCR. Studies were based on 550 shoulders (539 patients) with a mean patient age of 56.3 years (range, 25-77). After a mean follow-up of 14.0 years (range, 9-20), the mean preoperative absolute Constant score (CS) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score were significantly improved postoperatively (CS, 44 to 78 points; ASES, 52% to 91%; both comparisons, P < .001). The retear rate was 41% (141 of 342 shoulders) without a significant difference between groups (aRCR, 43%; oRCR, 39%) (P = .364). A retear was associated with significantly reduced CS as compared with a healed repair (P = .004). No significant differences were found in postoperative functional scores, complications, and retear rates after failed cuff repairs between the arthroscopic and open/mini-open repair groups.

CONCLUSION

Pooled analysis of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repairs demonstrated sustained improvement in long-term shoulder scores and pain with a substantial retear rate in both groups, which was associated with inferior shoulder function. There were no significant differences in long-term functional outcomes, retear rates, and complications. Both surgical techniques may be used on the basis of factors such as patient or surgeon preference and cost. Further studies using a more robust randomized controlled trial or larger cohort design are recommended to ascertain whether one surgical repair technique is superior to the other.

REGISTRATION

CRD42020180448 (PROSPERO).

Biomechanical analysis of bioabsorbable suture anchors for rotator cuff repair using osteoporotic and normal bone models

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the failure load of suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair between normal and osteoporotic bone models.

METHODS

A total of 16 anchors made from metal (TwinFix Ti 5.0 or 6.5 mm, Corkscrew FT 4.5, 5.5, or 6.5 mm), polyether ether ketone (HEALICOIL PK [HC-PK] 4.5 or 5.5 mm, SwiveLock PK 4.75 or 5.5 mm), or bioabsorbable material (HEALICOIL RG [HC-RG] 4.75 or 5.5 mm, Corkscrew Bio 4.75, 5.5, or 6.5 mm, SwiveLock BC 4.75 or 5.5 mm) were included. Moreover, 10- and 5-pounds per cubic foot (pcf) Sawbone® models were set as normal and osteoporotic cancellous bone models, respectively. Pullout testing was performed in parallel to the insertion axis at a displacement rate of 12.5 mm/s using a universal testing machine. To evaluate the change in failure load between the two Sawbone® models with different densities, the remaining failure load ratio (RFLR) was defined as the ratio of the failure load in 10 pcf to that in 5 pcf.

RESULTS

In the 10-pcf Sawbone®, TwinFix Ti 6.5 mm showed the highest mean failure load (304.0 ± 15.2 N). In the 5-pcf Sawbone® model, HC-PK 5.5 mm showed the highest failure load (146.3 ± 5.8 N). Among anchors with the same diameter, HC-PK and HC-RG showed a significantly higher failure load than other anchors in the 10- and 5-pcf Sawbone® models. HC-PK 5.5 mm (62.1%) and HC-PK 4.5 mm (51.1%) have the highest RFLR among anchors with the same diameter.

CONCLUSIONS

HC-PK and HC-RG showed higher failure load than the other anchors in both normal and osteoporotic bone models, except for TwinFix Ti 6.5 mm in the 10-pcf Sawbone® model. Based on our results, bioabsorbable anchors had sufficient failure load for rotator cuff repair in addition to bioabsorbability.

Retear rates after rotator cuff surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Rotator cuff retear (RCR) is one of the main postoperative drawbacks. RCR can be considered a multifactorial issue, which causes are related either to biological than biomechanical factors. The aim of this study was to define the incidence of RCR after surgical treatment at different time points and to identify the main factors influencing the postoperative rotator cuff (RC) healing.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of the literature was carried out in July 2020, using PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Only level 1 and 2 clinical evidence studies were included. Studies were included if patients with preoperative repairable full-thickness RC tears were treated surgically, and if studies reported postoperative RCR confirmed by imaging diagnostic. The association between timing of retear and follow-up time points were investigated using an inverse-variance method of pooling data. A subgroup meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian and Laird method for the estimation of the between-study variance, i.e., τ². The association between retear rate after surgery and patients’ age, preoperative tear size, fatty infiltration, postoperative rehabilitation protocol, surgical techniques, and RC repairs was determined by expressing the effect measure in terms of odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The Mantel-Haenszel method with 95% CIs was used.

Results

Thirty-one articles were included in this study. The percentage of RCR after surgery was 15% at 3 months follow-up, 21% at 3–6 months follow-up, 16% at 6–12 months follow-up, 21% at 12–24 months follow-up, 16% at follow-up longer than 24 months. The main factors influencing RC healing are both patient-related (i.e., age, larger tear size, fatty infiltration) and not patient-related (i.e., postoperative rehabilitation protocol, surgical techniques, and procedures).

Conclusions

Postoperative RC healing is influenced by patient-related and non-patient-related factors. Further high-level clinical studies are needed to provide highly relevant clinical results.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04634-6.

Conservative versus accelerated rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the conservative and accelerated rehabilitation protocols in patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in terms of clinical outcomes and range of motions at 3, 6, 12, and 24-month follow-up.

Methods

According to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was performed. For each included article, the following data has been extracted: authors, year, study design, level of evidence, demographic characteristics, follow-up, clinical outcomes, range of motions, and retear events. A meta-analysis was performed to compare accelerated versus conservative rehabilitation protocols after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The retear rate, postoperative Constant-Murley score and range of motions at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up were the outcomes measured.

Results

The search strategy yielded 16 level I-II clinical studies. A total of 1424 patients, with 732 patients and 692 in the accelerated and conservative group, were included. The average age (mean ± standard deviation) was 56.1 ± 8.7 and 56.6 ± 9 in the accelerated and conservative group. The mean follow-up was 12.5 months, ranging from 2 to 24 months. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences in terms of retear rate between the groups (P = 0.29). The superiority of the accelerated group was demonstrated in terms of external rotation (P < 0.05) at 3-month follow-up; in terms of forward elevation, external rotation, abduction (P < 0.05), but not in terms of Constant-Murley score at 6-month follow-up; in terms of forward elevation (P < 0.05) at 12-month follow-up. No significant differences between the two group were highlighted at 24-month follow-up.

Conclusions

No statistically significant differences in the retear rate among the accelerated and conservative group have been demonstrated. On the other hand, statistically and clinically significant differences were found in terms of external rotation at 3 and 6 months of follow-up in favour of the accelerated group. However, no differences between the two groups were detected at 24 months follow-up.

Two Techniques for Treating Medium-Sized Supraspinatus Tears: The Medially Based Single-Row Technique and the Suture Bridge Technique

Background

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair emerged in the early 1990s, and the single-row repair technique (i.e., suture anchor[s] set at the center or laterally on the greater tuberosity) has shown promising outcomes; however, the healing rate of the repaired cuff is suboptimal. Although small to medium-sized rotator cuff tears have shown better clinical outcomes and structural healing than larger tears, healing failure still occurs¹.There are several factors that affect rotator cuff healing. The initial stiffness and strength of the repair, gap formation resistance, footprint coverage at the end of surgery, vascularity of the cuff, and mechanical stress on the repaired cuff are important factors². To improve tendon-to-bone healing, 2 repair techniques have been developed: the suture bridge technique and the medially based single-row technique. The suture bridge technique involves placing anchors in a 2-row fashion, with medial-row sutures from the medial anchors bridged over the footprint with lateral-row knotless anchors³. The single-bridge technique has shown biomechanical superiority in terms of ultimate strength, stiffness, and gap formation resistance⁴; however, these outcomes are achieved at the cost of relatively high tension at the suture-cuff junction, as well as interference with vascularity at the medial mattress sutures if medial mattress sutures are tied.Alternatively, the medially based single-row technique was proposed as a modification of the laterally based (traditional) single-row technique⁵. This technique is combined with the creation of bone marrow vents (microfracture technique) lateral to the inserted anchor in the footprint to promote soft-tissue regeneration (called "neotendon") over the exposed footprint. The theoretical advantages of this technique include lower tension on the repaired cuff; better screw purchase beneath the subchondral bone, which avoids weaker cancellous bone on the peripheral area of the greater tuberosity; and avoidance or reduction of lateral shift of the muscle-tendon junction. However, these outcomes are achieved with relatively weaker initial fixation strength and by exposing the uncovered greater tuberosity footprint lateral to the repaired tendon edge.Both procedures provide equivalent outcomes as measured by functional and pain scores. At present, there is no decisive superiority in treating small to medium-sized supraspinatus tears.

Description

Arthroscopic subacromial decompression is performed in both techniques.For suture bridge fixation, the suture anchor is placed at the articular margin of the humeral head as the medial row, and both limbs of each suture are passed through the tendon approximately 5 mm lateral to the muscle-tendon junction of the rotator cuff in a mattress fashion. After the medial-row knots are tied, the suture limbs are brought into 2 lateral push-in anchors.For the medially based single-row repair, suture anchors are placed lateral to the articular margin. Each suture limb is passed through the tendon approximately 1 cm medial to the torn edge of the cuff. All sutures are tied with 7 half-hitches, avoiding a sliding knot.

Alternatives

Open or mini-open rotator cuff repair⁶.Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair suture bridge technique without knot-tying⁷.Arthroscopic transosseous (i.e., anchorless) rotator cuff repair⁸.

Rationale

The suture bridge technique has achieved better mechanical properties and footprint coverage, and the medially based single-row technique has achieved lower tension on the repaired construct with neotendon regeneration. These techniques are the opposite concept as coverage-oriented and tension-oriented techniques, respectively. To our knowledge, there is presently no study showing that either of these 2 techniques is better than the other⁴. With that said, the author prefers the medially based single-row technique in cases with degenerative tendon tissue, especially among elderly patients with relatively short tendon substance and with preoperative stiffness because lowering the tension on the repaired construct would be more important than coverage of the greater tuberosity.

Expected Outcomes

Published data have not shown significant differences in the clinical outcomes and cuff integrity between these 2 techniques, with no decisive superiority when treating small to medium-sized supraspinatus tears. The choice between these techniques is solely the decision of the surgeon; however, medial cuff failure has been reported only when using the suture bridge technique, and incomplete healing was more frequent among medially based single-row techniques. One should consider the risks of medial cuff failure and incomplete healing of the repaired cuff before choosing the repair technique for medium-sized supraspinatus tears.

Important Tips

The proposed risk factors for medial cuff failure in the suture bridge technique include:○ A mattress suture configuration placed at the muscle-tendon junction○ Aggressive rehabilitation○ Use of a large-diameter suture passer○ Application of a sliding knot○ High-stress concentration around the medial knotsThe proposed risk factors for incomplete healing in the medially based single-row techniqueare:○ Lower mechanical properties (initial stiffness and strength, gap formation resistance) in the repaired site○ Lower number of sutures.

Cost analysis and complication rate comparing open, mini-open, and all arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

Hypothesis/Background

Value-based healthcare delivery models are becoming increasingly common and are driving cost effectiveness initiatives. Rotator cuff repair (RCR) is a commonly performed procedure with some variations on the specific surgical technique. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive analysis of the cost, complications, and readmission rates of 3 categories of RCR techniques (open [oRCR], combined arthroscopically assisted and mini-open [CRCR], and all arthroscopic [ARCR]) at a high-volume institution.

Methods

All RCR procedures performed by 2 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons at a single institution between 2012 and 2017 were retrospectively identified. These consisted of oRCR, CRCR, and ARCR repair techniques. One surgeon performed oRCR and CRCR, and the second surgeon performed ARCR. A cost analysis was designed to include a period of 60 days preoperatively, the index surgical hospitalization, and 90 days postoperatively, including costs of any readmission or reoperation.

Results

The cohort consisted of 95 oRCR, 233 CRCR, and 287 ARCR. Median standardized costs were as follows: preoperative evaluation $486.03; index surgical hospitalization oRCR $9,343.10, CRCR $10,057.20, and ARCR $10,330.60; and postoperative care $875.02. Preoperative and postoperative costs did not vary based on the type of RCR performed. However, significant differences were observed among index surgical costs (P = .0008). The highest standardized cost for hospitalization for both the CRCR group and the ARCR group was related to the cost of the operating room and the implants. The 90-day complication, reoperation, and readmission rates were 1.1%, 1.1%, and 2.1% in the open group; 0.8%, 0.8%, and 1.7% in the combination group; 0%, 0%, and 1.7% in the all arthroscopic group, respectively. There were no significant differences among the 3 surgical procedures with respect to complication (P = .26), reoperation (P = .26), and readmission rates (P = .96).

Discussion/Conclusions

In this investigation, the median standardized costs for RCR inclusive of 60-day workup and 90-day postoperative care were $10,704.15, $11,418.25, and $11,691.65 for oRCR, CRCR (average added cost $714.10), and ARCR (added cost $987.50), respectively. The group complication, reoperation, and readmission rate were 0.5%, 0.5%, and 1.8% with no significant differences between the varying techniques, respectively. This retrospective cost analysis and complication profile may serve as a useful reference as surgeons consider engaging in bundled payment for RCR. As value based initiatives continue to progress, implant cost may serve as an actionable area for cost reduction.

Update on all-arthroscopic vs. mini-open rotator cuff repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To provide an updated comparison between modern arthroscopic and mini-open repairs for treating rotator cuff tears.

Methods

Multiple online databases were searched from 2010 to October 1st, 2020. A meta-analysis was conducted for patient-reported outcomes and complications.

Results

Eleven studies were included. Majority of patients underwent mini-open repair (MOR) compared to arthroscopic repair (AR) (57.4% vs 42.6%). A meta-analysis found statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in patient-reported outcomes favouring AR. While retear rates were higher in AR (p = 0.03) analysis of retear rates for arthroscopic double row and mini-open repairs, yielded no differences between groups (p = 0.48).

Conclusion

Patients undergoing AR for rotator cuff tears had improved post-operative clinical outcomes in some functional outcomes compared to MOR. Modern arthroscopic double row repair result in similar failure rates to open repair techniques.

Level of evidence

Level III, Systematic Review of Level I-III studies.

Age-related differences in humerothoracic, scapulothoracic, and glenohumeral kinematics during elevation and rotation motions

Age affects gross shoulder range of motion (ROM), but biomechanical changes over a lifetime are typically only characterized for the humerothoracic joint. Suitable age-related baselines for the scapulothoracic and glenohumeral contributions to humerothoracic motion are needed to advance understanding of shoulder injuries and pathology. Notably, biomechanical comparisons between younger or older populations may obscure detected differences in underlying shoulder motion. Herein, biplane fluoroscopy and skin-marker motion analysis quantified humerothoracic, scapulothoracic, and glenohumeral motion during 3 static poses (resting neutral, internal rotation to L4-L5, and internal rotation to maximum reach) and 2 dynamic activities (scapular plane abduction and external rotation in adduction). Orientations during static poses and rotations during active ROM were compared between subjects <35 years and >45 years of age (N=10 subjects per group). Numerous age-related kinematic differences were measured, ranging 5–25°, where variations in scapular orientation and motion were consistently observed. These disparities are on par with or exceed mean clinically important differences and standard error of measurement of clinical ROM, which indicates that high resolution techniques and appropriately matched controls are required to avoid confounding results of studies that investigate shoulder kinematics. Understanding these dissimilarities will help clinicians manage expectations and treatment protocols where indications and prevalence between age groups tend to differ. Where possible, it is advised to select age-matched control cohorts when studying the kinematics of shoulder injury, pathology, or surgical/physical therapy interventions to ensure clinically important differences are not overlooked.