Gurnani N, Willems WJ, van Deurzen DFP, Weening AA, Bouwer J, Janssen TWJ, Veeger DHEJ. Shoulder kinematics and muscle activity following latissimus dorsi transfer for massive irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears in shoulders with pseudoparalysis.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2022;
31:1357-1367. [PMID:
35172211 DOI:
10.1016/j.jse.2022.01.121]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2021] [Revised: 01/05/2022] [Accepted: 01/09/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to evaluate the thoracohumeral (TH) and glenohumeral (GH) motion with muscle activity after latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) in a shoulder with a massive irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tear (MIRT) and pseudoparalysis compared with the asymptomatic contralateral shoulder (ACS).
METHODS
We recruited and evaluated 13 patients after LDT in a shoulder with preoperative clinical pseudoparalysis and an MIRT on magnetic resonance imaging, with a minimum follow-up period of 1 year, and with a Hamada stage of 3 or less. Three-dimensional electromagnetic tracking was used to assess shoulder active range of motion in both the LDT shoulder and the ACS. The maximal active elevation of the shoulder (MAES) was assessed and consisted of forward flexion, scapular abduction, and abduction in the coronal plane. Maximal active internal rotation and external rotation were assessed separately. Surface electromyography (EMG) was performed to track activation of the latissimus dorsi (LD) and deltoid muscles during shoulder motion. EMG was scaled to its maximal isometric voluntary contraction recorded in specified strength tests.
RESULTS
In MAES, TH motion of the LDT shoulder was not significantly different from that of the ACS (F1,12 = 1.174, P = .300) but the GH contribution was significantly lower in the LDT shoulder for all motions (F1,12 = 11.230, P = .006). External rotation was significantly greater in the ACS (26° ± 10° in LDT shoulder vs. 42° ± 11° in ACS, P < .001). The LD percentage EMG maximum showed no significant difference between the LDT shoulder and ACS during MAES (F1,11 = 0.005, P = .946). During maximal active external rotation of the shoulder, the LDT shoulder showed a higher percentage EMG maximum than the ACS (3.0% ± 2.9% for LDT shoulder vs. 1.2% ± 2.0% for ACS, P = .006).
CONCLUSIONS
TH motion improved after LDT in an MIRT with pseudoparalysis and was not different from the ACS except for external rotation. However, GH motion was significantly lower after LDT than in the ACS in active-elevation range of motion. The LD was active after LDT but not more than in the ACS except for active external rotation, which we did not consider relevant as the activity did not rise above 3% EMG maximum. The favorable clinical results of LDT do not seem to be related to a change in LD activation and might be explained by its effect in preventing proximal migration of the humeral head in active elevation.
Collapse