Skip to main content
Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery logoLink to Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery
. 2026 Oct;40(10):1548–1554. [Article in Chinese] doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202605054

关节镜下自体肌腱网格状动态肩袖重建技术治疗不可修复性巨大肩袖损伤

Effectiveness of arthroscopic grid-pattern dynamic rotator cuff reconstruction using autologous tendon graft for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears

Kai HUANG 1, Xuancheng ZHANG 1,△,#, Guoming XIE 1, Huixiang WANG 1, Kang HAN 1, Caiqi XU 1, Jinzhong ZHAO 1, Xiaoqiao HUANGFU 1,2,*
PMCID: PMC13677455  PMID: 42896995

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate effectiveness of arthroscopic grid-pattern dynamic rotator cuff reconstruction using autologous tendon graft in treatment of irreparable massive rotator cuff tears (IMRCT).

Methods

A retrospective case series study was conducted on 32 patients with IMRCT treated between July 2022 and December 2023. All patients underwent arthroscopic grid-pattern dynamic rotator cuff reconstruction using autologous peroneus longus tendon graft. There were 11 males and 21 females, aged 49-76 years (mean, 65 years). The clinical symptoms were joint pain accompanied by limited mobility and abduction weakness. The duration of preoperative symptoms ranged from 3 to 24 months (mean, 9 months). Pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and shoulder function was evaluated using the modified University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score and the Constant-Murley score before operation and at 3, 6, 12 months after operation. MRI was performed during follow-up to assess graft integrity. Complications were recorded.

Results

The operation time ranged from 75 to 130 minutes, with a mean of 90 minutes. All incisions healed by first intention, and no significant complication or adverse reaction was observed. All patients were followed up 12-24 months (mean, 16.5 months). All postoperative scores improved significantly when compared with preoperative values (P<0.05). Pain and function continued to improve over time; no significant difference was observed in the modified UCLA scores among 6 months, 12 months, and last follow-up, nor in any scores between 12 months and last follow-up (P>0.05); all other pairwise comparisons showed significant differences (P<0.05). At last follow-up, shoulder function was rated as excellent in 12 cases, good in 18 cases, and poor in 2 cases according to the modified UCLA scoring system, yielding an excellent-to-good rate of 93.8%. MRI follow-up demonstrated intact reconstructed rotator cuff structures in 29 patients, with a healing rate of 90.6% (29/32).

Conclusion

Arthroscopic grid-pattern dynamic rotator cuff reconstruction using autologous tendon graft is effective for IMRCT, significantly alleviating pain, improving shoulder range of motion, and restoring both functional and structural integrity, without major complication or adverse reaction.

Keywords: Irreparable massive rotator cuff tear, rotator cuff reconstruction, autologous tendon graft


肩袖损伤是骨科常见肌肉骨骼疾病之一,50岁以上人群发病率为25.6%~50%[1],其中撕裂超过5 cm的巨大肩袖损伤可达40%[2]。如肌腱断端回缩至肩盂关节面内侧,伴严重肌肉脂肪浸润,术中经充分松解后仍无法在无过大张力下修复至足印区时,则为不可修复性巨大肩袖损伤(irreparable massive rotator cuff tear,IMRCT)[3-4],根据Gerber等[3]基于肌腱回缩程度和肌肉脂肪浸润提出的分型标准均属于Ⅲ型(肌腱回缩至关节盂水平,伴有严重脂肪浸润)。

IMRCT会导致肩关节生物力学失衡,引发持续性疼痛、无力及活动障碍,严重影响患者生活质量。目前,IMRCT手术治疗方案多样,各有局限性。部分修补术虽能缓解部分症状,但无法恢复肩袖力偶平衡[4]。传统肌腱转移术(如背阔肌或大圆肌转位)虽然能恢复部分功能,但手术创伤相对较大,对术者技术要求较高,且术后功能恢复过程较长[5]。上关节囊重建(superior capsular reconstruction,SCR)虽能恢复肩关节上方静态稳定性,但无法提供动态肌肉收缩力,且移植物若采用自体阔筋膜会增加创伤,若使用同种异体真皮补片则费用昂贵[6]。肩袖补片桥接修补技术虽试图恢复解剖连续性,但移植物与宿主组织愈合界面是薄弱环节,且存在材料免疫排斥反应、重塑不佳等风险[7-8]。鉴于现有技术局限性,本团队创新性提出一种关节镜下自体肌腱网格状动态肩袖重建技术。该技术通过将自体腓骨长肌腱在肩袖残端进行多次纵横穿绕,形成“网格状”结构以桥接巨大缺损,并将肌腱两端固定于肱骨大结节,从而在恢复肩袖解剖连续性同时重建动态力学传导功能。2022年7月—2023年12月,上海交通大学医学院附属第六人民医院骨科应用该技术治疗32例IMRCT患者。现回顾患者临床资料,探讨其疗效,以期为临床广泛应用奠定基础。

1. 临床资料

1.1. 一般资料

患者纳入标准:① 年龄≥18岁;② 术前影像学检查示IMRCT(肩袖肌腱撕裂≥2根或撕裂口≥5 cm[3]);③ 术中关节镜下探查确认巨大肩袖损伤且冈上肌腱回缩至关节盂边缘甚至内缘、退变明显,经充分松解且肩关节外展60° 无法拉回足印区,即Gerber Ⅲ型肩袖损伤,并且肩袖残端肌腱质量可,确保自体肌腱穿入后具备一定抗拉强度。

排除标准:① 术前影像学检查示肩关节严重退变性骨关节炎 [Hamada分级≥4级,或存在明显肱骨头向上移位、肩峰下间隙显著狭窄(<5 mm)及骨赘形成];② 肩关节风湿性或类风湿性关节炎;③ 肩关节色素沉着绒毛结节性滑膜炎;④ 合并肩关节脱位或肩锁关节脱位;⑤ 肩袖损伤术后翻修;⑥ 既往有其他肩关节手术史或关节感染史。

本组男11例,女21例;年龄49~76岁,平均65岁。左肩14例,右肩18例。其中26例有明确肩关节外伤史。主要临床症状均为关节疼痛伴活动受限、外展乏力;术前均经保守治疗无效;症状持续时间3~24个月,平均9个月。 术前肩关节疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS) 、肩关节功能改良美国加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)评分及Constant-Murley评分见表1。

表 1.

Comparison of functional and pain scores between pre- and post-operation (n=32)

手术前后功能和疼痛评分比较(n=32)

时间
Time
VAS评分
VAS score
改良UCLA评分
Modified UCLA score
Constant‑Murley 评分
Constant-Murley score
*与术前比较P<0.05,#与术后3个月比较P<0.05,△与术后6个月比较P<0.05,▲与术后12个月比较P<0.05
*Compared with preoperative value, P<0.05; #compared with the value at 3 months after operation, P<0.05; △compared with the value at 6 months after operation, P<0.05; ▲compared with the value at 12 months after operation, P<0.05
术前 6.4(5.0,7.0)#△▲ 15.4±4.5#△▲ 40.3±9.3#△▲
术后3个月 3.2(2.0,4.0)*△▲ 24.3±3.2*△▲ 61.3±5.0*△▲
术后6个月 2.0(1.0,3.0)*#▲ 30.2±2.3*# 80.6±3.9*#▲
术后12个月 1.3(1.0,2.0)*#△ 30.7±2.9*# 82.6±5.4*#△
末次随访 1.2(0.0,2.0)*#△ 30.3±2.5*# 83.4±5.9*#△
统计值 χ2=128.000
P<0.001
F=143.285
P<0.001
F=420.879
P<0.001

1.2. 手术方法

全身麻醉后,患者取健侧卧位,患肢外展30° 位悬吊皮牵引,牵引质量4~5 kg。经常规肩关节后方入路置入关节镜,建立前方入路,置入手术器械。关节镜下探查关节腔有无合并损伤、肱二头肌长头腱关节内部分连续性及质量。如伴关节粘连(32例),予以关节囊松解术;伴肩胛下肌腱损伤(9例),根据损伤程度选择关节腔内或肩峰下修补术。然后建立肩关节外侧入路及前外侧入路,将关节镜置入肩峰下间隙,清理扩大肩峰下滑囊,成形肩峰前外侧增生骨赘。然后经外侧入路关节镜下观察评估肩袖损伤及回缩情况,探查肱二头肌长头腱连续性及肌腱质量。本组患者均确定为肩袖巨大撕裂,累及2根以上肌腱且冈上肌腱回缩明显,松解后仍无法拉回足印区,同时肩袖残端肌腱质量可承受自体肌腱穿入牵拉,选择采用自体肌腱网格状动态肩袖重建技术。

1.2.1. 腓骨长肌腱前半段切取

在手术同侧外踝后侧茎突近侧约2 cm处,于腓骨后外侧、腓骨肌腱表面向近侧作一长2~3 cm切口,暴露腓骨长肌腱后用血管钳将其挑出。用蚊式钳将腓骨长肌腱分成前、后相等两半,然后用2号超强高分子聚乙烯缝线(Smith&Nephew公司,美国)编织肌腱前半段远侧用以牵拉取腱。将踝关节固定于跖屈外翻,将切口远侧肌腱拉出切口,尽可能于肌腱远侧将其切断。采用6 mm内径肌腱剥离器向近侧剥取肌腱前半段。同样用2号超强高分子聚乙烯缝线编织肌腱近侧断端。最后采用2号可吸收缝线(Ethicon公司,美国)将肌腱中间部分进行编织,以便后续肌腱在肩袖组织中反复穿插。本组切取腓骨长肌腱长度为22~24 cm。

1.2.2. 肱二头肌长头腱与肩胛下肌的处理

① 如关节镜下检查明确肱二头肌长头腱连续性与张力良好,可进行转位固定以帮助覆盖肱骨头(26例)。经肩关节外侧入路置入关节镜作为观察入路,经前外侧入路置入手术器械作为操作入路,以骨性刨削器磨除肱骨大结节骨赘,清理肩袖足印区。使用2号超强高分子聚乙烯缝线套扎肱二头肌长头腱,合适张力下将肌腱后移约1.5 cm转位至冈上肌腱足印区近关节面处,植入1枚直径4.75 mm带线外排锚钉(Arthrex公司,美国)固定。如肱二头肌长头腱关节腔内连续性欠佳、质量差,则不选择其转位固定,直接行腓骨长肌腱移植物悬吊加强肩袖组织(6例)。② 若术中探查发现肩胛下肌损伤为Lafosse Ⅱ~Ⅲ型(9例),则使用1~2枚4.5 mm内排锚钉(Arthrex公司,美国)将其固定于肱骨小结节。

1.2.3. 自体腓骨长肌腱移植物悬吊重建肩袖

经外侧入路置入关节镜观察。经后方入路置入鸟嘴钳,引导自体肌腱一端超强高分子聚乙烯缝线自后向前穿过冈下肌至撕裂口;前方入路置入鸟嘴钳,引导肌腱自前向后穿过残存冈上肌,并回撤抓线器牵拉肌腱穿过冈上肌残端。随后,经前外侧入路置入钝头将肌腱一端折返,采用鸟嘴钳或带PDS线的缝线钩引导肌腱穿绕近端肩袖组织;同法将肌腱另一端折返并重复穿绕操作。多次往返后,肌腱两端自残端底面穿出,交叉固定于肱骨大结节外侧缘。经肌腱往返穿插厚撕裂口两端需各有2~3道肌腱穿入,拉紧后能完全覆盖损伤口。通过肌腱网格状穿绕巨大肩袖损伤的游离缘后收紧固定,达到肩袖动态重建目的。见图1、2。

图 1.

Schematic illustration of the arthroscopic grid-pattern dynamic rotator cuff reconstruction using autologous tendon graft

关节镜下自体肌腱网格状动态肩袖重建技术示意图

黄色箭头示肌腱从肩袖残端底面穿出,绿色箭头示肌腱从肩袖残端表面穿入

Yellow arrows showed the tendon passing out from the inferior aspect of the cuff stump, while green arrows showed the tendon passing in from the superior aspect

图 1

图 2.

Arthroscopic procedure of grid-pattern dynamic rotator cuff reconstruction using autologous tendon graft

关节镜下自体肌腱网格状动态肩袖重建技术操作示意图

a. 镜下示IMRCT;b. 自体肌腱自肩袖撕裂口远端横行穿入;c. 自体肌腱反复多次穿绕悬吊近端肩袖组织;d. 自体肌腱收紧后将肩袖损撕裂口完全覆盖

a. Arthroscopic view of an IMRCT; b. The autologous tendon was passed transversely through the distal margin of the rotator cuff tear; c. The autologous tendon was repeatedly passed around and suspended through the proximal rotator cuff tissue; d. The autologous tendon was tightened and the rotator cuff tear was completely covered

图 2

1.2.4. 肌腱移植物的固定

完成肌腱覆盖后,将肌腱两头超强高分子聚乙烯缝线从肩袖近端拉出,并在合适位置采用打磨头在肱骨头表面开2个小凹槽(长1~2 cm、深约0.5 cm),分别容纳自体肌腱两端。肌腱交叉后,在合适张力牵引下确保肩袖撕裂口回缩并被移植肌腱完全覆盖,选择腓骨长肌腱两端固定位置,一般在足印区外侧缘大结节附近,采用4.75 mm Arthrex带线外排锚钉分别将腓骨长肌腱两端超强高分子聚乙烯缝线进行固定。完成固定后观察足印区覆盖良好。术毕严密止血,缝合皮肤切口,无菌敷料包扎后于患肩外展30° 中立位佩戴肩关节支具。

1.3. 术后处理

术后使用镇痛泵及静脉滴注非甾体类抗炎药多模式镇痛。所有患者均由专业康复师指导康复训练,具体如下:① 术后即刻上臂置于中立外展30° 位佩戴肩关节外展支具,固定时间6周;② 术后第1天开始耸肩、钟摆及画圈运动,肘、腕、手关节的主动活动度训练,以及肩关节被动前屈、外旋活动度训练;③ 6周后恢复全关节活动度,2个月后开始肩关节主动活动度训练,3个月后开始肩关节周围肌肉力量训练,6个月后行肩关节对抗性训练;④ 每次锻炼结束时冰敷患处约15 min,以减轻肿胀和炎症。

1.4. 疗效评价指标

术后3、6、12个月及之后每隔6个月门诊随访。随访时采用VAS评分、改良UCLA评分及Constant-Murley 评分评估患者肩关节疼痛缓解及功能恢复情况。术后6、12个月MRI复查重建肩袖组织结构完整性。记录术后感染、阵挛痛、关节粘连、锚钉移位或拔出等并发症发生情况。

1.5. 统计学方法

采用SPSS25.0统计软件进行分析。计量资料采用Anderson-Darling法进行正态性检验,如符合正态分布,以均数±标准差表示,手术前后比较采用重复测量方差分析;如不符合正态分布,以M(Q1,Q3)表示,手术前后比较采用Friedman非参数检验。检验水准取双侧α=0.05。

2. 结果

本组手术时间75~130 min,平均90 min。术后患者均获随访,随访时间12~24个月,平均16.5个月。术后切口均Ⅰ期愈合,均未出现感染、阵挛痛、关节粘连及锚钉移位或拔出等并发症及不良反应。所有患者术后各项评分均较术前改善(P<0.05);术后随时间延长疼痛及功能均进一步改善,除改良UCLA评分术后6、12个月及末次随访间以及各项评分术后12个月与末次随访间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)外,其余时间点间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。见表1。末次随访时,根据改良UCLA评分评价,肩关节功能达优12例、良18例、差2例,优良率93.8%。MRI复查示29例患者重建肩袖组织结构完整,愈合率达90.6%(29/32);另3例患者出现重建肌腱组织结构连续性丧失,但患者主观感觉疼痛明显好转、活动度改善,未行翻修手术。见图3。

图 3.

A 67-year-old female patient with IMRCT of right shoulder joint

患者,女,67岁,右肩关节IMRCT

a. 术前MRI示冈上、下肌腱巨大撕裂伴回缩;b~e. 术后即刻、3个月、6个月和12个月MRI,示移植肌腱与宿主组织愈合良好,连续性完整,肌肉张力恢复;f~h. 术后12个月患者肩关节活动度

a. Preoperative MRI showed massive tear of supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons with retraction; b-e. MRI at immediate, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation, demonstrated good healing between graft and host tissue, restored continuity, and recovered muscle tension; f-h. Satisfactory range of motion of shoulder joint at 12 months after operation

图 3

3. 讨论

3.1. 技术生物力学优势与机制

IMRCT的治疗一直是肩关节外科面临的巨大挑战。本研究采用的自体肌腱网格状动态肩袖重建技术,其核心创新在于“网格状”编织与“动态”固定策略。该技术利用自体腓骨长肌腱在残留的冈上肌与冈下肌残端之间进行纵横交错的网格编织,不仅桥接了巨大缺损,更通过网格结构分散了应力集中,降低了单一固定点的失效风险[9]。此外,我们将肌腱两端固定于大结节骨道内,模拟肩袖肌腱止点重建,使得移植物在肌肉收缩时能产生类似原生肌腱的动态收缩效应。该技术不仅是“修补”,更是一种“功能重建”。它通过自体肌腱的“悬吊”和“网格化”固定,为退变的肩袖残端提供了一个稳定力学环境,可能有助于延缓肌肉的脂肪浸润进程[10]。

目前,国内外针对IMRCT的治疗手段主要包括SCR、补片桥接技术以及肌腱转位等。Mihata等[10]提出的SCR技术虽然在恢复肩关节静态稳定方面具有较好疗效,但其主要依赖阔筋膜等同种异体或自体材料重建上关节囊,无法提供动态肌肉收缩力,且存在材料费用昂贵、重塑期长等问题。而传统桥接技术虽然试图恢复肩袖的解剖连续性,但常因移植物(如生物补片或同种异体肌腱)的生物力学性能与宿主不匹配,以及内侧缝合固定方式对退变肌腱的切割效应,导致术后再撕裂率居高不下[10]。国内赵金忠教授创新性提出扎根式肩袖重建技术[11],同样采取腓骨长肌腱移植方法,能动态恢复肩袖生物力学,然而肱骨骨隧道建立较复杂,容错率低。本研究采用的腓骨长肌腱取材方便,对踝关节功能影响极小,且通过全关节镜下操作,微创优势明显。与使用同种异体肌腱或人工生物补片相比,自体肌腱避免了免疫排斥反应和疾病传播风险,且具有更强的生物活性和愈合潜力[8,12-13]。本组术后愈合率达90.6%,显著高于既往文献报道的生物补片修补术(愈合率60%~80%)[12-14],这可能得益于自体肌腱良好的生物学特性及网格结构带来的广泛骨-腱接触面积。既往研究表明,IMRCT修补后结构失败率较高,主要归因于肌腱回缩张力过大及组织质量差[9]。通过网格式穿绕肩袖方法,有效覆盖肩袖缺损,再通过外排锚钉远端固定,操作方便,技术容易推广。此外,除上述治疗方法外,目前IMRCT还可采用反式肩关节置换,但对于相对年轻、关节盂软骨尚好且对运动功能要求较高的患者,面临假体寿命及翻修困难的问题[15-18]。相比之下,本组采用的自体肌腱网格状动态肩袖重建技术保留了患者自身关节结构,属于“保关节”手术,更具优势。

3.2. 技术疗效及适应证、禁忌证

本研究结果显示术后患者肩关节疼痛及功能均明显改善,末次随访时移植物愈合率高达90.6%,表明该技术能有效缓解疼痛、恢复肩关节功能并重建肩袖结构的完整性。其中,术后6个月功能评分较术前有飞跃性提升,且术后12个月及末次随访时维持在较高水平,未见明显下降。MRI随访显示绝大多数患者移植物愈合良好,结构完整。这说明移植物不仅起到了物理填充作用,更实现了生物学愈合。网格状结构增加了移植物与宿主组织的接触面积,有利于血管长入和细胞爬行,这可能是促进愈合的关键因素。此外,术后Constant-Murley评分优良率达93.8%,表明该技术在恢复肩关节外展和外旋功能方面具有确切疗效,这与重建了肩关节后上方的力偶平衡密切相关。

结合本组32例患者治疗情况,我们认为该技术主要适用于Gerber Ⅲ型IMRCT患者。这类患者通常表现为冈上肌和冈下肌均存在严重撕裂且回缩,经充分松解后仍无法直接拉回大结节足印区,且伴有明显的疼痛和外展乏力症状。主要适应证包括:① 多根肌腱(≥2根)撕裂,缺损巨大,直接缝合张力过大。② 冈上肌腱回缩至关节盂内侧或边缘,但肌腱残端仍保留一定厚度和韧性,足以承受网格状穿绕的牵拉。其中,Goutallier 1~2级脂肪浸润、肌腱残端质量较好者是理想适应证;对于Goutallier 3级(肌肉与脂肪各占50%)脂肪浸润者,只要术中探查肌腱残端仍具有一定厚度和韧性,能承受肌腱穿绕时的牵拉力,仍可尝试该技术。对于Goutallier 4级(脂肪浸润>50%)或残端组织脆如粉末者,由于无法提供足够的抓握强度,视为禁忌证。患者年轻或对术后功能要求较高,希望获得动态肌肉功能恢复而非单纯静态覆盖,利用自体肌腱重建不仅能填补巨大的组织缺损,还能通过机械牵拉刺激,抑制肌肉脂肪化进程。

禁忌证主要包括:肩袖残端退变、脂肪化过于严重(Goutallier 4级),组织脆如粉末,无法在穿绕过程中形成牢固的机械抓握;以及合并严重肩关节骨关节炎(Hamada 4级以上)或类风湿性关节炎患者,此类患者可能更适合反式肩关节置换[19-22]。

3.3. 研究局限性

首先,本研究为一项回顾性病例系列研究,样本量有限,且缺乏随机对照,存在选择偏倚。其次,平均随访时间仅16.5个月,对于该技术长期耐用性及是否会发生迟发性失效,有待更长时间随访观察。最后,本研究未进行生物力学测试,关于网格状结构的力学性能优势尚需基础研究证实。

综上述,关节镜下自体肌腱网格状动态肩袖重建技术治疗IMRCT近期疗效确切。该技术通过利用自体腓骨长肌腱的高强度特性,构建网格状结构填补巨大缺损,不仅能有效减轻患者疼痛,还能显著改善肩关节活动度及功能评分,重建组织愈合率高,并发症少,而且操作相对简便。

Funding Statement

国家自然科学基金资助项目(82302665);海南省关节临床重点中心和海口市骨科大专科联盟

National Natural Science Foundation of China (82302665); Hainan Provincial Clinical Research Center for Joints and Haikou Orthopedics Specialty Alliance

References

  • 1.Jeon IH, Kholinne E Advancements in the management of irreparable rotator cuff tears. Indian J Orthop. 2025;59(6):731–742. doi: 10.1007/s43465-024-01322-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bedi A, Dines J, Warren RF, et al Massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2010;92(9):1894–1908. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gerber C, Fuchs B, Hodler J The results of repair of massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2000;82(4):505–515. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200004000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Laprus H, Brzóska R, Błasiak A, et al Massive and irreparable rotator cuff tear treatment by arthroscopic partial repair with long head of the biceps tendon augmentation provides better healing and functional results than partial repair only. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2024;33(2):263–272. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.06.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lang J, Morya VK, Lee Y, et al Outcome comparison of arthroscopic latissimus dorsi tendon transfer and muscle advancement for irreparable rotator cuff tear: a systematic review. Int J Surg. 2025;111(10):7254–7269. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000002848. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Claro R, Fonte H Superior capsular reconstruction: current evidence and limits. EFORT Open Rev. 2023;8(5):340–350. doi: 10.1530/EOR-23-0027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bi M, Sun Z, Wei L, et al Arthroscopic superior capsule reconstruction with combined fascia lata autograft augmented with either LARS ligament or polypropylene mesh synthetic scaffold patch graft: A comparison of techniques with a minimum 2-year follow-up for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med. 2025;53(7):1721–1730. doi: 10.1177/03635465251336190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Malavolta EA, Assunção JH, Gracitelli MEC, et al Clinical and structural evaluation of rotator cuff repair with subacromial poly-L-lactic acid spacer interposition: a randomized controlled trial. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(11):2991–3001. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Amini MH Editorial Commentary: Treatment of large and massive rotator cuff tear must be based on individual patient indications: bridging repair allows low-tension repair of irreparable tears. Arthroscopy. 2025;41(4):914–915. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.08.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mihata T, Lee TQ, Hasegawa A, et al Long-term clinical and structural outcomes of arthroscopic superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable rotator cuff tears: 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2025;53(1):46–56. doi: 10.1177/03635465241298898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tang J, Zhao J Rooting rotator cuff reconstruction for irreparable posterior-superior rotator cuff tear. Arthrosc Tech. 2021;10(3):e727–e737. doi: 10.1016/j.eats.2020.10.061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pluchino M, Vivarelli L, Giavaresi G, et al. Commercial biomaterial-based products for tendon surgical augmentation: a scoping review on currently available medical devices [J/OL]. J Funct Biomater, 2025, 16(4): 130. doi: 10.3390/jfb16040130.
  • 13.Yoon JP, Park S, Kim D, et al Graft treatment for rotator cuff tendon-bone interface augmentation: status and prospects-a narrative review. Clin Orthop Surg. 2025;17(4):557–567. doi: 10.4055/cios24490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zhang T, Ajayi A, Hajjar M, et al Arthroscopic repair of retracted large and massive rotator cuff tears with and without augmentation with a bio-inductive collagen implant reveals substantial and comparable clinical improvement. Arthroscopy. 2024;40(5):1434–1442. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.10.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Liu J, Luo C, Chen Y, et al Massive irreparable rotator cuff tear with deltoid tear managed with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: Case report and review of literature. Medicine (Baltimore) 2025;104(40):e44507. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000044507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Steenbeek ED, Hesseling B, Spekenbrink-Spooren A, et al Revision rates and patient-reported outcomes after shoulder hemiarthroplasty vs. anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years: a cohort study with data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2025;34(9):2114–2121. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.12.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Werner BS, Chaoui J, Walch G The role of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of massive rotator cuff tears. EFORT Open Rev. 2017;2(6):279–287. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.O'Malley O, Craven J, Davies A, et al. Outcomes following revision of a failed primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty[J]. Bone Joint J, 2024, 106-B(11): 1293-1300.
  • 19.Burkhart SS, Danaceau SM, Pearce CE Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Analysis of results by tear size and by repair technique-margin convergence versus direct tendon-to-bone repair. Arthroscopy. 2001;17(9):905–912. doi: 10.1053/jars.2001.26821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hamada K, Fukuda H, Mikasa M, et al Roentgenographic findings in massive rotator cuff tears. A long-term observation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(254):92–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.中华医学会运动医疗分会肩关节学组. 后上不可修复巨大肩袖撕裂重建治疗专家共识(2026版)[J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2026, 40(6): 849-859.
  • 22.Goutallier D, Postel JM, Bernageau J, et al Fatty muscle degeneration in cuff ruptures. Pre- and postoperative evaluation by CT scan. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;(304):78–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery are provided here courtesy of Sichuan University

RESOURCES