Skip to main content
OrthoVellum
Knowledge Hub

Study

  • Topics
  • MCQs
  • ISAWE
  • Operative Surgery
  • Flashcards

Company

  • About Us
  • Editorial Policy
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA
  • Refund Policy

Support

  • Help Center
  • Accessibility
  • Report an Issue
OrthoVellum

© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not affiliated with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Massive Rotator Cuff Tears

Back to Topics
Contents
0%

Massive Rotator Cuff Tears

Comprehensive guide to massive rotator cuff tears and treatment options for FRCS exam preparation

complete
Updated: 2025-12-25
High Yield Overview

MASSIVE ROTATOR CUFF TEARS

Greater than 5cm | 2+ Tendons | Fatty Infiltration

> 5cmDefinition
2+Tendons involved
GoutallierFatty grading
RSASalvage option

Classification

Massive
PatternGreater than 5cm tear
TreatmentOr 2+ tendons
Irreparable
PatternCannot reduce to footprint
TreatmentStatic retraction, atrophy
Pseudoparalysis
PatternCannot elevate arm
TreatmentShoulder arthroplasty indications

Critical Must-Knows

  • Massive tear = greater than 5cm or 2+ tendons completely torn
  • Goutallier Grade 3-4 fatty infiltration = poor repair outcomes
  • Pseudoparalysis = inability to actively elevate arm
  • Repair if possible, otherwise tendon transfer, SCR, or RSA
  • Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for CTA (cuff tear arthropathy)

Examiner's Pearls

  • "
    Irreparable does not mean inoperable
  • "
    Subscapularis preservation important for function
  • "
    Superior capsular reconstruction emerging option
  • "
    RSA converts deltoid to primary mover

Critical Massive RCT Exam Points

Definition

Greater than 5cm tear OR 2+ complete tendon tears. Assessment: MRI for size, retraction, muscle quality. Goutallier grading of fatty infiltration.

Fatty Infiltration

Goutallier Classification (CT/MRI): Grade 0-4. Grades 3-4 (muscle less than fat) predict poor outcomes after repair. Irreversible. May preclude repair.

Pseudoparalysis

Cannot actively elevate arm. Indicates loss of force couple. May still have passive motion. Indicates need for RSA rather than repair alone.

Options

Repair (if reducible, muscle quality acceptable). Partial repair. Tendon transfer (lat dorsi, lower trap). SCR (superior capsular reconstruction). RSA (cuff tear arthropathy).

Mnemonic

0-4Goutallier Classification

0
Normal muscle
No fatty infiltration
1
Some fatty streaks
Minimal
2
Less than 50% fat
More muscle than fat
3
50% fat
Equal muscle and fat
4
Greater than 50% fat
Fat predominates - irreparable

Memory Hook:Goutallier 3-4 = poor repair outcome, consider alternatives!

Overview and Assessment

Massive rotator cuff tears are defined as tears greater than 5cm in size or involving 2 or more complete tendon ruptures. These present unique challenges for treatment.

Assessment

MRI: Tear size, retraction, tendon involvement. Muscle quality (Goutallier grade).

Goutallier Classification:

  • Grade 0: Normal
  • Grade 1: Fatty streaks
  • Grade 2: Fat less than muscle
  • Grade 3: Fat = muscle
  • Grade 4: Fat greater than muscle

Grade 3-4 has poor prognosis for repair (muscle cannot recover).

Tangent Sign: Supraspinatus muscle atrophy (does not reach tangent line on scapular spine).

Pathophysiology

Progressive Tear Enlargement

  • Mechanical failure cascade: Initial tear increases stress on remaining tendon
  • Stress concentration: Adjacent tendon margins bear increased load
  • Tear propagation: Anterior-to-posterior or medial progression common
  • Critical size threshold: Tears greater than 3cm have higher progression rates

Muscle Changes

Retraction:

  • Tendon retracts medially after rupture
  • Static retraction indicates chronic irreducible tear
  • Retraction beyond glenoid rim = poor repair outcome

Fatty Infiltration (Steatosis):

  • Occurs within 3-6 months of complete tear
  • Progressive and IRREVERSIBLE
  • Goutallier Grade 3-4 fatty changes preclude successful repair
  • Muscle replaced by fat cannot regenerate contractile function

Muscle Atrophy:

  • Cross-sectional area decreases with disuse
  • Tangent sign positive when supraspinatus atrophied
  • Atrophy partially reversible if repaired early; fatty infiltration is not

Biomechanical Consequences

  • Force couple disruption: Loss of balanced compression of humeral head
  • Superior migration: Unopposed deltoid pull causes humeral head ascent
  • Acetabularization: Erosion of undersurface of acromion (cuff tear arthropathy)
  • Femoralization: Humeral head becomes smooth, rounded (loss of greater tuberosity)

Exam Pearl

Key Distinction: Muscle atrophy may partially recover after repair, but fatty infiltration (Goutallier 3-4) is irreversible. This is why timing of repair matters.

Clinical Presentation

History

Weakness with overhead activities. May have history of acute on chronic pain. Difficulty sleeping on side. Progressive loss of function.

Examination

Pseudoparalysis: Cannot actively elevate arm (often less than 90°). Indicates loss of force couple.

Horn-blower's Sign: Cannot externally rotate in abduction (infraspinatus/teres minor dysfunction).

External Rotation Lag Sign: Cannot maintain externally rotated position (posterior cuff failure).

Belly Press Test: Cannot maintain hand pressure on belly (subscapularis).

Investigations

Imaging

Plain Radiographs:

  • AP, axillary lateral, scapular Y views
  • Acromiohumeral interval (AHI): Less than 7mm suggests massive tear with superior migration
  • Acetabularization: Concave erosion of undersurface of acromion
  • Femoralization: Smooth, rounded humeral head
  • Glenohumeral arthritis: Suggests cuff tear arthropathy

MRI (Gold Standard):

  • Tear size measurement in coronal and sagittal planes
  • Tendon retraction (medial to glenoid = poor prognosis)
  • Fatty infiltration grading (Goutallier):
  • Grade 0: No fat
  • Grade 1: Fatty streaks
  • Grade 2: Fat less than muscle
  • Grade 3: Fat equals muscle
  • Grade 4: Fat greater than muscle
  • Tangent sign: Positive when supraspinatus does not reach scapular spine tangent (atrophy)
  • Occupation ratio: Less than 50% suggests significant atrophy

CT Arthrography:

  • Alternative if MRI contraindicated
  • Excellent for bone detail
  • Can assess fatty infiltration

Classification Schemes

ClassificationComponentsClinical Use
Patte (retraction)Stage 1-3Predicts reducibility
Goutallier (fatty)Grade 0-4Repair outcomes
Hamada (CTA)Grade 1-5Arthroplasty planning
Warner (tear pattern)Crescent, U, LRepair technique selection

Management

📊 Management Algorithm
Subdeltoid region of the left shoulder. Observe the coracohumeral ligament extending from the outer
Click to expand
Subdeltoid region of the left shoulder. Observe the coracohumeral ligament extending from the outer border of the horizontal limb of the coracoid procCredit: OrthoVellum

Criteria for Repair:

  • Tear that can be reduced to footprint (not statically retracted)
  • Acceptable muscle quality (Goutallier 0-2)
  • No or minimal arthrosis

Technique: Arthroscopic or open. Double-row/transosseous equivalent for stronger fixation. May need margin convergence, releases.

Partial Repair: If cannot fully close, partial repair still beneficial (biomechanically restore force couples).

Augmentation: Patches (synthetic or biologic) may be used.

Tendon Transfer:

  • Latissimus dorsi: For posterosuperior tears. External rotation function.
  • Lower trapezius: Emerging option for posterior cuff.
  • Pectoralis major: For subscapularis deficiency.

Superior Capsular Reconstruction (SCR): Dermal allograft or fascia to reconstitute superior capsule. Prevents superior migration. Emerging evidence.

Balloon Spacer: Subacromial biodegradable spacer. Temporary improvement.

Debridement/Biceps Tenotomy: Palliation in older, low-demand patients.

Cuff Tear Arthropathy (CTA): Massive irreparable tear + glenohumeral arthritis + superior migration of humeral head.

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty (RSA):

  • Converts deltoid to primary mover
  • Semi-constrained design
  • Ball on glenoid, socket on humerus
  • Excellent for CTA with pseudoparalysis

Indications: CTA, pseudoparalysis, failed other treatments, elderly (typically greater than 65-70).

Complications

Repair Complications

ComplicationIncidenceManagement
Re-tear30-60% in massive tearsOften still functionally better; consider revision or salvage
Stiffness5-15%Aggressive rehab; may need MUA or lysis
Infection1-2%Debridement, antibiotics
Deltoid detachment1-2% (open repair)Repair; may cause significant weakness
Nerve injuryLess than 1%Axillary, suprascapular at risk

Tendon Transfer Complications

  • Failure of transfer healing: Especially latissimus dorsi
  • Nerve injury: Thoracodorsal (lat dorsi), spinal accessory (trapezius)
  • Persistent weakness: Transfer may not fully restore function
  • Loss of donor function: Rarely clinically significant

RSA (Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty) Complications

ComplicationIncidenceNotes
Scapular notching30-50%Mechanical erosion of scapular neck; usually Grade 1-2
Instability2-5%Especially if prior surgery
Infection1-3%Propionibacterium acnes common
Acromial fracture3-7%Due to increased deltoid tension
Baseplate loosening1-5%More common with osteoporosis
Hematoma2-5%Dead space in massive RCT

Exam Pearl

Re-tear Rates: Massive rotator cuff repairs have 30-60% structural failure rates, but patients often have functional improvement despite re-tear due to improved force couples and scar tissue support.

Evidence Base

IV
📚 Goutallier et al
Key Findings:
  • Described fatty infiltration classification
  • Grade 3-4 = poor repair outcomes
  • Muscle does not recover after repair
  • Foundation for surgical planning
Clinical Implication: Goutallier grading guides treatment selection.
Source: Clin Orthop 1994

IV
📚 Mihata et al
Key Findings:
  • Superior capsular reconstruction technique
  • Biomechanical restoration of force couples
  • Improved elevation with SCR
  • Alternative to RSA in younger patients
Clinical Implication: SCR is emerging option for irreparable tears.
Source: Arthroscopy 2013

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOAdvanced

Scenario 1: Massive RCT

EXAMINER

"A 68-year-old man cannot lift his arm. MRI shows complete supraspinatus and infraspinatus tears with Goutallier Grade 4 fatty infiltration. How do you manage him?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This patient has a massive rotator cuff tear (2+ complete tendon tears) with Goutallier Grade 4 fatty infiltration which indicates the muscle is predominantly fat and irreversibly damaged. He also has pseudoparalysis (cannot lift arm), indicating loss of the force couples that normally elevate the arm. With these findings, standard repair is not likely to succeed. The fatty infiltration will not recover even if the tendon is repaired. If X-rays show preserved joint space without arthrosis, options in a 68-year-old include tendon transfer (latissimus dorsi for posterosuperior cuff), superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), or observation with physiotherapy focusing on the deltoid as a compensator. However, if there is cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) with superior migration of the humeral head and arthrosis, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) would be indicated. RSA converts the deltoid to the primary mover by medializing the center of rotation and creating a fixed fulcrum. It is excellent for CTA with pseudoparalysis. Given his age (68), RSA would be very appropriate if CTA is present. I would obtain plain radiographs to assess for arthrosis and superior migration. The presence of arthrosis would confirm CTA and indicate RSA as the best salvage option.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Goutallier Grade 4 = repair will not succeed
Pseudoparalysis = loss of force couple
CTA = RSA indicated
Tendon transfer or SCR for non-arthritic
COMMON TRAPS
✗Trying to repair Grade 4 fatty infiltration
✗Not knowing Goutallier classification
✗Not differentiating repairable vs irreparable
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What is cuff tear arthropathy?"
"How does RSA work?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Scenario 2: Borderline Reparability in Younger Patient - Repair vs Non-Repair Options Decision-Making

EXAMINER

"You are seeing a 52-year-old male carpenter in your shoulder clinic who has been referred by his GP for management of a chronic rotator cuff tear. He initially injured his shoulder 18 months ago when he fell off a ladder at work and has had progressive weakness since then. He has failed 6 months of comprehensive physiotherapy and now has significant functional limitations - he cannot perform overhead work and is at risk of losing his job. On examination, he has weakness of forward elevation (active elevation to 110 degrees only), positive external rotation lag sign, and positive hornblower's sign. He has full passive range of motion. There is no significant glenohumeral arthritis on palpation. You review the MRI report which states: 'Complete full-thickness tear of supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons. Tear measures 6cm in anteroposterior dimension. Moderate retraction to level of glenoid margin. Subscapularis appears intact. Goutallier grading: Supraspinatus Grade 3 (fat equals muscle), Infraspinatus Grade 2 (fat less than muscle). Tangent sign positive for supraspinatus (atrophy present). No significant glenohumeral arthritis identified.' His plain radiographs show preserved joint space with an acromiohumeral interval of 6mm (borderline). He asks: (1) Can this tear be repaired? (2) What are my options if it can't be repaired? (3) I'm only 52 and still need to work - what would give me the best chance of getting back to work?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a complex case of a massive rotator cuff tear (6cm tear involving 2 complete tendons) with BORDERLINE reparability in a relatively young, high-demand patient where treatment decisions have significant functional and occupational implications. The key challenge is determining whether to attempt repair versus proceeding directly to a non-repair option. First, ASSESSING REPARABILITY - factors suggesting this tear MAY be repairable: (1) RETRACTION to glenoid margin (not beyond) - this is BORDERLINE. Tears retracted beyond the glenoid have much poorer outcomes with repair. (2) INFRASPINATUS Grade 2 fatty infiltration - this is ACCEPTABLE for repair attempt (Grade 0-2 generally have reasonable outcomes). (3) SUBSCAPULARIS INTACT - this is CRITICAL. Subscapularis preservation predicts better functional outcomes even with posterosuperior cuff deficiency. (4) NO pseudoparalysis - he can still actively elevate to 110 degrees (pseudoparalysis would be less than 90 degrees typically). However, factors AGAINST reparability: (1) SUPRASPINATUS Grade 3 fatty infiltration - this is BORDERLINE. Grade 3 (fat equals muscle) represents the cutoff - Goutallier et al (Clin Orthop 1994) showed Grade 3-4 have poor outcomes, but Grade 3 is controversial (some surgeons still attempt repair). (2) TANGENT SIGN positive (significant atrophy). (3) CHRONIC tear (18 months) - muscle changes are now well-established and largely irreversible. For TREATMENT OPTIONS discussion: OPTION 1 - ATTEMPT ARTHROSCOPIC REPAIR (possibly with PARTIAL REPAIR): The rationale for attempting repair despite borderline Grade 3 fatty infiltration: (1) He's relatively young (52) and high-demand, (2) Even a PARTIAL REPAIR that doesn't fully close the defect can improve biomechanics by restoring some force couple balance. Boileau et al (JBJS Am 2005) showed that partial repairs still provide functional benefit even if tear not completely closed. (3) If subscapularis preserved and even partial posterosuperior repair achieved, functional outcomes can be acceptable. Technique would include: Margin convergence (side-to-side suturing) to reduce tension, Possible releases (capsular, interval slide), Double-row or transosseous equivalent fixation for maximum strength, Accept that full anatomic repair to footprint may not be achievable. CRITICAL COUNSELING point: RE-TEAR RISK is 30-60% for massive tears (Galatz et al, JBJS Am 2004), but patients often maintain functional improvement despite structural failure due to improved force couples and scar tissue. OPTION 2 - TENDON TRANSFER (Latissimus Dorsi or Lower Trapezius): If repair not feasible or surgeon not confident in repair: LATISSIMUS DORSI transfer is traditional option for posterosuperior massive tears. Transfer replaces external rotation function (substitutes for infraspinatus/teres minor). Outcomes: 70-80% good functional outcomes, particularly for external rotation strength. LOWER TRAPEZIUS transfer is an emerging alternative with biomechanically more anatomic vector. Recent evidence (Elhassan et al, JSES 2020) shows promising early results. Both require intact subscapularis for optimal function. OPTION 3 - SUPERIOR CAPSULAR RECONSTRUCTION (SCR): SCR uses dermal allograft or fascia lata autograft to reconstruct the superior capsule and prevent superior migration of humeral head. Mihata et al (Arthroscopy 2013) described technique and showed improved forward elevation. This is an EMERGING option with MEDIUM-TERM evidence but not yet long-term data. Advantages: (1) Younger patient where RSA not ideal, (2) Preserves native joint, (3) Can still convert to RSA later if fails. Disadvantages: (1) Technically demanding, (2) Graft failure rates reported 20-30% in some series, (3) Still relatively new technique. For MY RECOMMENDATION in this 52-year-old carpenter: I would recommend attempting ARTHROSCOPIC REPAIR with the understanding that a PARTIAL REPAIR may be all that's achievable and the RE-TEAR risk is high (I would quote 40-50% given the Grade 3 fatty infiltration). RATIONALE: (1) At age 52, he's too young for RSA (typically reserved for greater than 65-70 years), (2) Even a partial repair can provide functional benefit (Boileau et al, JBJS Am 2005), (3) If repair fails, tendon transfer or SCR remain options, (4) His intact subscapularis and borderline retraction suggest repair is technically feasible. I would counsel him that: SUCCESS is defined as functional improvement (return to work), NOT structural healing - even if the repair re-tears on imaging, if he gains function and can work, that's a success. If repair fails functionally (not just structurally), revision with latissimus dorsi transfer or SCR would be next step. RETURN TO WORK timeline: 6-9 months for heavy carpentry work (need tendon healing at 3-4 months, then progressive strengthening).
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Assessing reparability in massive RCT - multiple factors must be considered: (1) RETRACTION: To glenoid = borderline, beyond glenoid = poor prognosis. (2) FATTY INFILTRATION (Goutallier): Grade 0-2 acceptable, Grade 3 borderline/controversial, Grade 4 irreparable. (3) SUBSCAPULARIS STATUS: Intact subscap predicts better outcomes even with posterosuperior deficiency. (4) PSEUDOPARALYSIS: Presence suggests need for RSA rather than repair. (5) CHRONICITY: Acute/subacute better than chronic (muscle changes irreversible after 3-6 months).
Partial repair concept in massive RCT - functional benefit despite incomplete closure: Boileau et al (JBJS Am 2005) showed partial repairs that restore some force couple provide functional benefit even if tear not completely closed. Technique: Margin convergence (side-to-side suturing), reduce tension, maximize what can be repaired. Even closing 50-70% of defect can improve biomechanics significantly. Re-tear rates 30-60% in massive tears (Galatz et al, JBJS Am 2004), but functional improvement often maintained due to improved force couples and scar tissue.
Tendon transfer options for irreparable massive RCT - latissimus dorsi vs lower trapezius: LATISSIMUS DORSI transfer - traditional option: Transfers internal rotator to function as external rotator (replaces infraspinatus/teres minor). Outcomes 70-80% good results. Requires intact subscapularis for optimal function. Loss of donor function (internal rotation) rarely clinically significant. LOWER TRAPEZIUS transfer - emerging alternative: More anatomic line of pull (biomechanically superior vector). Elhassan et al (JSES 2020) showed promising early results. Technically demanding. Both options require intact subscapularis and are alternatives to RSA in younger patients.
Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) - emerging option for younger patients with irreparable tears: Mihata et al (Arthroscopy 2013) described technique using dermal allograft or fascia lata to reconstruct superior capsule. Prevents superior migration of humeral head, improves forward elevation. INDICATIONS: Irreparable massive tear in younger patient (less than 60-65), no or minimal glenohumeral arthritis, pseudoparalysis or severe weakness. Advantages: Preserves native joint, can convert to RSA if fails. Disadvantages: Technically demanding, graft failure 20-30% in some series, medium-term but not long-term data yet. This is an alternative to RSA in younger active patients where arthroplasty not ideal.
Age considerations in massive RCT treatment - different options for different ages: YOUNGER (less than 55-60): Attempt repair (even partial), tendon transfer, SCR. Avoid RSA if possible (mediocre longevity concerns for young active patients). MIDDLE-AGE (55-65): Attempt repair if borderline repairable, SCR or tendon transfer if irreparable, RSA if CTA present and lower demand. ELDERLY (greater than 65-70): RSA more acceptable option if irreparable or CTA, especially if pseudoparalysis. Age is relative - must consider activity level, occupation, and patient expectations.
Counseling about re-tear risk and functional vs structural outcomes: CRITICAL concept: Structural healing (intact repair on MRI) does NOT equal functional outcome. Galatz et al (JBJS Am 2004) showed 30-60% re-tear rates in massive RCT repairs, BUT many patients maintain functional improvement despite re-tear. WHY? (1) Improved force couples even with partial repair, (2) Scar tissue provides some stability, (3) Deltoid compensation. SUCCESS should be defined as FUNCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT (pain relief, return to activities, return to work), NOT structural integrity on MRI. Counsel patients that MRI follow-up may show 're-tear' but this doesn't necessarily mean failure if function is good.
COMMON TRAPS
✗Declaring a tear 'irreparable' based solely on Goutallier grading without considering all factors (retraction, chronicity, subscapularis status, patient age/demand). Grade 3 fatty infiltration is BORDERLINE, not absolute - some tears with Grade 3 may still benefit from repair attempt, especially partial repair with margin convergence.
✗Recommending RSA in a 52-year-old active carpenter without CTA. RSA is typically reserved for greater than 65-70 years or for CTA with pseudoparalysis. In younger patients, RSA has concerns about implant longevity and activity restrictions. Alternatives like tendon transfer or SCR should be exhausted first.
✗Not discussing the PARTIAL REPAIR concept and margin convergence techniques. Many candidates would say 'tear is irreparable' without recognizing that even a partial repair that restores some force couple can provide functional benefit (Boileau et al, JBJS Am 2005).
✗Equating structural failure (re-tear on MRI) with functional failure. The critical teaching point is that 30-60% of massive RCT repairs re-tear but many patients still have functional improvement. Success is defined by function, not imaging.
✗Not recognizing the importance of SUBSCAPULARIS preservation. An intact subscapularis significantly improves outcomes even with posterosuperior cuff deficiency. This patient's intact subscap is a favorable prognostic factor.
✗Failing to counsel patient about realistic return to work timeline (6-9 months for heavy carpentry) and the possibility that job modification may still be needed even with successful surgery.
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What is margin convergence and how does it help in massive RCT repair?"
"Describe the latissimus dorsi tendon transfer technique and rehabilitation"
"What are the key steps in superior capsular reconstruction (SCR)?"
"If this patient's repair fails at 1 year post-op, what would your next step be?"
"What are the biomechanical principles of how RSA works and why does it help with cuff deficiency?"
VIVA SCENARIOCritical

Scenario 3: Failed Massive RCT Repair with Complex Salvage Decision - Revision, Tendon Transfer, or Arthroplasty?

EXAMINER

"You are seeing a 58-year-old female administrative manager in your complex shoulder reconstruction clinic for a second opinion. She underwent arthroscopic repair of a massive rotator cuff tear (supraspinatus and infraspinatus) 14 months ago performed by another surgeon. The operative report describes: 'Arthroscopic double-row repair of massive posterosuperior rotator cuff tear. Supraspinatus and infraspinatus mobilized and repaired to footprint with medial row and lateral row anchors. Margin convergence performed to reduce tension. Subscapularis intact.' Post-operatively, she initially improved for about 3-4 months with physiotherapy. However, her symptoms have gradually returned over the past 6 months. She now has significant pain with overhead activities and progressive weakness. She cannot reach overhead to get items from high cupboards and has difficulty washing her hair. On examination today: Active forward elevation 95 degrees (passive 160 degrees), positive external rotation lag sign, positive hornblower's sign, negative belly press test (subscapularis still intact), no significant glenohumeral tenderness. You review her post-operative MRI (performed at 12 months when symptoms returned) which reports: 'Post-surgical changes with anchor artifacts. Complete re-tear of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus repairs with retraction to the level of the glenoid. Marked progression of fatty infiltration since pre-operative imaging - now Goutallier Grade 3-4 in both supraspinatus and infraspinatus. Subscapularis remains intact. No significant glenohumeral joint arthritis. Acromiohumeral interval 7mm (borderline).' Her plain radiographs show: 'Post-surgical changes including subacromial decompression. Humeral head centered with no superior migration. Acromiohumeral interval preserved at 7mm. No glenohumeral arthritis. No hardware complications.' She is very frustrated and asks: (1) Why did my repair fail? (2) What are my options now? (3) Can you redo the repair? (4) I've read about tendon transfers and reverse shoulder replacement - which is right for me?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is an extremely complex case of FAILED MASSIVE ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR presenting multiple challenging decision points about revision surgery versus salvage options in a middle-aged patient where the optimal treatment is controversial. First, understanding WHY the repair failed - analyzing the failure: (1) MASSIVE TEAR with inherently HIGH RE-TEAR RISK: Galatz et al (JBJS Am 2004) showed 30-60% structural failure rate for massive tears even with optimal technique. This patient's tear involved 2 complete tendons (supraspinatus and infraspinatus) - this is high-risk for failure regardless of surgical technique. (2) PROGRESSION OF FATTY INFILTRATION: The critical finding is that her Goutallier grading has PROGRESSED from presumably Grade 1-2 pre-operatively (since repair was attempted) to now Grade 3-4 post-operatively. This indicates: (a) The muscle continues to deteriorate despite repair (failed healing or early re-tear), (b) Fatty infiltration is PROGRESSIVE and IRREVERSIBLE, (c) The biological healing potential of these muscles is now severely compromised. (3) TECHNICAL FACTORS (impossible to assess without arthroscopy, but possibilities include): Inadequate tendon mobilization, Residual tension at repair site, Anchor pullout or failure, Patient non-compliance with rehabilitation restrictions. However, based on the operative note describing appropriate technique (margin convergence, double-row repair), this likely represents a BIOLOGICAL FAILURE rather than technical failure. For ANALYZING CURRENT SITUATION - what makes this challenging: (1) AGE 58 years - this is the 'DIFFICULT AGE' for massive RCT salvage: TOO YOUNG for routine RSA (typically reserved for greater than 65-70), yet the BIOLOGICAL environment (Grade 3-4 fatty infiltration) makes revision repair unlikely to succeed. (2) SUBSCAPULARIS PRESERVED - this is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. The intact subscapularis means: She still has anterior force couple, better stability, better outcomes with any salvage procedure that preserves or reconstructs posterosuperior cuff. (3) NO GLENOHUMERAL ARTHRITIS and PRESERVED AHI (7mm) - she does NOT have cuff tear arthropathy (CTA). This means: RSA is not clearly indicated (CTA is the main indication), but other options may still work. (4) FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS but NOT pseudoparalysis: She can elevate to 95 degrees actively (pseudoparalysis is typically less than 90 degrees), suggesting she still has SOME force couple function (likely deltoid compensating with intact subscapularis providing anterior stability). For DISCUSSING TREATMENT OPTIONS with her: OPTION 1 - REVISION ARTHROSCOPIC REPAIR: This is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to succeed and I would NOT recommend it. Reasons AGAINST revision repair: (1) FATTY INFILTRATION now Grade 3-4 (irreversible, muscle is predominantly fat, cannot generate force), (2) CHRONIC RE-TEAR (6+ months) - muscle further atrophied and scarred, (3) FAILED PRIMARY REPAIR indicates poor biological healing potential, (4) Revision RCT repair success rates are POOR (less than 50%) even in favorable cases; with Grade 3-4 fatty changes, failure is almost certain. The ONLY scenario where I would consider revision repair is if intraoperative assessment showed the tendon is mobile, of good quality, and the previous repair had clear technical issues that could be corrected - this is very unlikely. OPTION 2 - LATISSIMUS DORSI TENDON TRANSFER: This is a STRONG consideration for this patient. INDICATIONS for latissimus dorsi transfer: (1) Irreparable posterosuperior massive RCT (she has this), (2) Intact SUBSCAPULARIS (she has this - CRITICAL for LD transfer success), (3) Relatively young patient (she's 58 - appropriate age), (4) NO glenohumeral arthritis (she meets this), (5) Functional disability but NOT pseudoparalysis (she meets this). Latissimus dorsi transfer REPLACES the function of the failed posterosuperior cuff (infraspinatus/teres minor) by transferring the LD tendon to the greater tuberosity. The LD is an INTERNAL ROTATOR that gets re-educated to function as an EXTERNAL ROTATOR. Technique: Harvest latissimus dorsi with its tendon, tunnel through posterior shoulder, fix to greater tuberosity (where infraspinatus normally inserts), rehabilitation focuses on re-educating the muscle. OUTCOMES: Gerber et al (JBJS Am 2006) long-term follow-up showed 70-80% good to excellent outcomes, significant pain relief, improved forward elevation (average gain 40-50 degrees), improved external rotation strength. BEST outcomes when subscapularis intact (which she has). CONTRAINDICATIONS/CONCERNS: (1) Loss of donor function (internal rotation) - usually well-tolerated, (2) Requires extensive rehabilitation (6-12 months), (3) Technically demanding surgery, (4) Risk of transfer failure/non-healing. For THIS patient, latissimus dorsi transfer is a very reasonable option given her age (58), intact subscapularis, no arthritis, and significant functional disability. OPTION 3 - LOWER TRAPEZIUS TRANSFER: This is an EMERGING alternative to latissimus dorsi transfer. Biomechanical advantage: Lower trapezius has a more anatomic line of pull (similar vector to infraspinatus), theoretically superior biomechanics to LD transfer. Elhassan et al (JSES 2020) reported promising early results. However, this is NEWER technique with LESS long-term data compared to LD transfer. May be considered by surgeons with expertise in this technique. OPTION 4 - SUPERIOR CAPSULAR RECONSTRUCTION (SCR): SCR uses dermal allograft or fascia lata to reconstruct the superior capsule. Mihata et al (Arthroscopy 2013) showed improved elevation. INDICATIONS: Irreparable massive RCT, younger patient, no arthritis. Potential option for this patient. CONCERNS: (1) SCR in the setting of FAILED PREVIOUS REPAIR is less well studied, (2) Graft failure rates 20-30% reported, (3) Scarring from previous surgery may compromise results. SCR is a reasonable option but probably SECOND choice after LD transfer given her failed repair and extensive scarring. OPTION 5 - REVERSE SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY (RSA): RSA is the 'GOLD STANDARD' for cuff tear arthropathy with pseudoparalysis. However, this patient does NOT have clear indications: (1) AGE 58 is YOUNG for RSA (concerns about implant longevity if she lives another 25-30 years), (2) NO glenohumeral arthritis (RSA is best for CTA), (3) NOT pseudoparalysis (she can still elevate to 95 degrees). That said, RSA COULD still be considered because: (1) It has the most predictable pain relief and functional improvement, (2) Modern RSA designs have improved longevity, (3) Failed RCT repair with Grade 3-4 fatty changes suggests biological solutions unlikely to work. CONSENSUS in literature: RSA should be RESERVED for when non-arthroplasty options have been exhausted or in older patients (greater than 65). At age 58, I would try tendon transfer first. For MY RECOMMENDATION for this 58-year-old: I would recommend LATISSIMUS DORSI TENDON TRANSFER as the first-line salvage option. RATIONALE: (1) She meets all the favorable criteria (intact subscapularis, no arthritis, appropriate age), (2) Proven track record with 70-80% good outcomes (Gerber et al, JBJS Am 2006), (3) Preserves her native joint (no prosthesis), (4) If LD transfer fails, RSA remains an option later (LD transfer does not 'burn bridges'). I would explain to her: LATISSIMUS DORSI TRANSFER is the recommended next step: Replaces failed posterosuperior cuff with transferred latissimus dorsi muscle/tendon, 70-80% chance of significant improvement in pain and function, 6-12 month rehabilitation (muscle re-education is critical), if this fails, RSA remains an option at that time. REVERSE SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY: Could be considered now, but at age 58 I would prefer to try biological solution first, RSA has excellent outcomes but concerns about longevity in young active patient, would be my recommendation if LD transfer fails or if patient declines lengthy LD rehabilitation. REVISION REPAIR: Would NOT recommend given Grade 3-4 fatty infiltration (almost certain to fail again).
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Analyzing why massive RCT repair failed - biological vs technical failure: BIOLOGICAL FAILURE factors: (1) Massive tear (2+ tendons, greater than 5cm) has inherent 30-60% re-tear risk even with optimal technique (Galatz et al, JBJS Am 2004). (2) PROGRESSION of fatty infiltration post-operatively from Grade 1-2 to Grade 3-4 indicates failed healing and continued muscle deterioration. (3) Chronic tear (18 months initial injury) - muscle changes advanced. TECHNICAL FAILURE factors (less likely if operative note describes appropriate technique): (1) Inadequate mobilization or excessive tension. (2) Anchor failure or pullout. (3) Incorrect anchor placement. In this case with good operative note, likely BIOLOGICAL failure rather than technical.
Indications and contraindications for REVISION rotator cuff repair: RARELY indicated after failed massive RCT repair. Would consider revision repair ONLY if: (1) Clear technical error identified that can be corrected, (2) Goutallier Grade 0-2 (good muscle quality), (3) Tendon mobile and of good quality on re-assessment. CONTRAINDICATED when: (1) Goutallier Grade 3-4 (this patient) - muscle is irreversibly damaged, repair will fail. (2) Chronic re-tear (greater than 6 months). (3) Progressive fatty infiltration. (4) Static retraction beyond glenoid. Revision repair success rates less than 50% even in favorable cases; with Grade 3-4 changes, failure almost certain.
Latissimus dorsi tendon transfer - indications, technique, and outcomes: INDICATIONS: (1) Irreparable posterosuperior massive RCT, (2) INTACT subscapularis (CRITICAL), (3) Younger patient (less than 65), (4) No or minimal glenohumeral arthritis, (5) Functional disability but not pseudoparalysis. TECHNIQUE: Harvest LD with its tendon, tunnel posteriorly, fix to greater tuberosity (infraspinatus insertion), transfers internal rotator to function as external rotator. OUTCOMES: Gerber et al (JBJS Am 2006) showed 70-80% good to excellent results. Pain relief most consistent benefit. Improved forward elevation (average 40-50 degrees gain). Improved external rotation strength. BEST outcomes when subscapularis intact. REHABILITATION: 6-12 months, focus on re-educating muscle (internal rotator becomes external rotator).
Age considerations in failed massive RCT - the 'difficult age' dilemma (55-65 years): This age group presents unique challenges - too YOUNG for routine RSA (concerns about implant longevity), yet often have ADVANCED fatty infiltration precluding revision repair. TREATMENT ALGORITHM by age: YOUNGER (less than 55-60): Strongly favor biological solutions (tendon transfer, SCR), avoid RSA unless absolutely necessary. MIDDLE AGE (55-65) - THE DIFFICULT AGE: First-line: Tendon transfer (LD or lower trap) or SCR, second-line: RSA if biological options fail or patient preference after counseling. ELDERLY (greater than 65-70): RSA is acceptable first-line option if irreparable or CTA. Age is RELATIVE - must consider activity level, expectations, and overall health. A 58-year-old active patient should have biological solutions attempted before arthroplasty if feasible.
Importance of subscapularis preservation in massive RCT salvage procedures: SUBSCAPULARIS INTEGRITY is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT for success of salvage procedures. INTACT subscapularis provides: (1) Anterior force couple balance (even with posterosuperior deficiency). (2) Stability (prevents anterior subluxation). (3) Internal rotation function. (4) Better outcomes with LD transfer (Gerber et al showed subscap integrity is strongest predictor of LD transfer success). (5) Better RSA outcomes (if needed - preserves active internal rotation). In this case, patient's INTACT subscapularis is a MAJOR favorable factor supporting LD transfer as first-line option rather than proceeding directly to RSA.
Comparing salvage options for failed massive RCT repair - LD transfer vs SCR vs RSA: LATISSIMUS DORSI TRANSFER: Pros - Proven long-term outcomes (Gerber et al, 70-80% success), biological solution (preserves joint), if fails can still do RSA. Cons - Technically demanding, 6-12 month rehab, loss of donor function. SUPERIOR CAPSULAR RECONSTRUCTION (SCR): Pros - Less invasive, preserves native anatomy. Cons - Newer technique (limited long-term data), graft failure 20-30%, less data in post-operative scarred shoulders. REVERSE SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY: Pros - Most predictable outcomes, excellent pain relief, definitive solution. Cons - Young age (58) = longevity concerns, prosthesis limits future options, activity restrictions. RECOMMENDATION HIERARCHY for 58-year-old: 1st choice - LD transfer, 2nd choice - RSA if LD fails or patient declines major rehab, SCR - consider if LD not feasible.
Counseling patient about realistic expectations and timeline for tendon transfer: Critical to set realistic expectations for LD tendon transfer: TIMELINE: Surgery followed by 6-12 MONTHS of rehabilitation. Initial 6 weeks: Passive motion only (protect healing). 6 weeks to 3 months: Active-assisted motion, muscle re-education starts. 3-6 months: Progressive strengthening. 6-12 months: Continued improvement (muscle re-education is long process). OUTCOMES: 70-80% good to excellent outcomes, but 'good' means pain relief and functional improvement, NOT normal shoulder. Pain relief most consistent benefit (80-90%). Forward elevation improves (average 40-50 degree gain). May still have some weakness/limitations. REALISTIC GOALS: Return to daily activities (washing hair, reaching overhead), significant pain reduction, improved quality of life, NOT competitive sports or heavy labor.
COMMON TRAPS
✗Recommending revision arthroscopic repair despite Goutallier Grade 3-4 fatty infiltration. This is THE CRITICAL TRAP - Grade 3-4 fatty changes are IRREVERSIBLE and revision repair is almost certain to fail. The muscle is predominantly fat and cannot generate force even if tendon is repaired. Many candidates say 'I would attempt revision repair' without recognizing that biological healing potential is exhausted.
✗Recommending RSA as first-line treatment without considering patient age (58 years). While RSA would likely provide good functional improvement, at age 58 there are legitimate concerns about implant longevity (patient may live another 25-30 years). The teaching point is that biological solutions (tendon transfer, SCR) should be attempted FIRST in younger patients, reserving RSA for when these options fail or in elderly patients.
✗Not recognizing the CRITICAL importance of INTACT SUBSCAPULARIS as a favorable prognostic factor. The intact subscapularis is the strongest predictor of success with latissimus dorsi transfer (Gerber et al). Many candidates discuss salvage options without noting this key favorable factor that makes LD transfer more likely to succeed.
✗Failing to explain WHY the repair failed - not discussing the concept of biological failure vs technical failure. Advanced candidates should analyze whether failure was due to poor muscle quality/healing potential (biological) or technical issues (inadequate repair). With operative note describing proper technique and progression of fatty infiltration, this is biological failure.
✗Not having a clear treatment algorithm based on age. The 'difficult age' of 55-65 years requires special consideration - must balance the desire for biological solutions (appropriate for younger age) against the reality of advanced muscle damage. Clear hierarchy: 1st line tendon transfer/SCR, 2nd line RSA if biological fails.
✗Overpromising outcomes with tendon transfer. Must counsel realistically that LD transfer has 70-80% good outcomes, but 'good' means pain relief and functional improvement, NOT return to normal. Outcomes are better than continued deterioration but not a 'cure'. Timeline is 6-12 months (long rehabilitation), not a quick fix.
✗Not explaining that if LD transfer fails, RSA remains an option ('not burning bridges'). This is an important counseling point - attempting biological solution first doesn't preclude arthroplasty later if needed, but doing RSA first eliminates biological options.
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"Walk me through the surgical technique for latissimus dorsi tendon transfer step by step"
"What is the rehabilitation protocol after LD transfer and why is it so prolonged?"
"If you perform LD transfer and it fails at 2 years post-op, what would you do next?"
"Compare the biomechanics of native shoulder vs RSA - how does RSA compensate for cuff deficiency?"
"What are the key technical steps in superior capsular reconstruction (SCR)?"
"Describe the complications specific to RSA that you would counsel this patient about if you recommended that option"
"What is the role of partial repair in this scenario - could you repair what's possible and then add a tendon transfer?"

MASSIVE ROTATOR CUFF TEARS

High-Yield Exam Summary

Definition

  • •Greater than 5cm tear
  • •OR 2+ complete tendon tears
  • •Assess size, retraction, muscle quality

Goutallier (Fatty Infiltration)

  • •0-2: May repair
  • •3: Muscle = fat (borderline)
  • •4: Fat greater than muscle (irreparable)

Treatment Options

  • •Repair if reducible, good muscle
  • •Tendon transfer (lat dorsi, trap)
  • •SCR (younger, no arthritis)
  • •RSA (CTA, pseudoparalysis)

Key Concepts

  • •Pseudoparalysis = loss of force couple
  • •CTA = irreparable + arthritis
  • •RSA converts deltoid to mover

Australian Context

Massive Rotator Cuff Tears in Australian Practice

Massive rotator cuff tears represent a significant clinical challenge in Australian orthopaedic and shoulder surgery practice, affecting an estimated 4-6% of the general population over age 60, with higher prevalence in manual laborers and overhead workers (tradespersons, painters, electricians). The condition has important implications for work capacity and disability in Australia's aging workforce, particularly as the retirement age extends and older workers remain in physically demanding occupations longer. Massive tears are more common in males (2:1 ratio) and are frequently associated with workplace injury claims under WorkCover schemes, though many patients present with chronic degenerative tears without a clear traumatic event.

In the Australian public hospital system, management of massive rotator cuff tears varies significantly between metropolitan tertiary centres and regional hospitals. Major shoulder surgery units in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide offer the full spectrum of treatment options including arthroscopic repair attempts, margin convergence techniques, superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), latissimus dorsi transfers, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). However, these advanced techniques require specialized shoulder surgeons and equipment - SCR requires dermal allograft (expensive, limited availability) or autograft fascia lata, while RSA requires specific implant systems and surgical expertise. Regional and rural patients with massive tears often require referral to tertiary centres, with waiting times in the public system potentially 6-12 months for non-urgent cases, during which tears may progress and muscle quality deteriorate (fatty infiltration advancing from Goutallier 2 to 3-4, making repair less likely to succeed).

From a RACS training perspective, massive rotator cuff tears are heavily emphasized in both written and clinical examinations. Trainees must demonstrate systematic assessment: history (duration, trauma vs degenerative, functional limitations, pseudoparalysis), examination (lag signs, external rotation strength, subscapularis function), and imaging interpretation (MRI assessment of tear size, retraction, Goutallier grading of fatty infiltration, presence of arthritis). The decision-making algorithm is critical exam content: attempt repair if tear is reducible to footprint and muscle quality acceptable (Goutallier 0-2), consider SCR or tendon transfer if irreparable but no arthritis and younger patient (less than 65-70), proceed to RSA if cuff tear arthropathy present or pseudoparalysis in older patient (greater than 70). The Goutallier classification (Grades 0-4 based on ratio of fat to muscle on sagittal MRI) is essential knowledge - Grade 3 (equal fat and muscle) is the critical threshold where repair outcomes decline significantly, and Grade 4 (more fat than muscle) predicts repair failure.

The emergence of reverse shoulder arthroplasty over the past 15 years has revolutionized treatment of massive irreparable tears in Australia, particularly for cuff tear arthropathy and pseudoparalysis in older patients. RSA converts the deltoid into the primary shoulder elevator (reversing the ball-socket relationship, medializing and distalizing the center of rotation), allowing functional arm elevation even without a functioning rotator cuff. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) data shows increasing utilization of RSA for rotator cuff arthropathy (now comprising approximately 40% of all shoulder arthroplasties performed in Australia), with 10-year survival rates of 85-90% comparable to international data. However, RSA is not without complications - instability (5-10%), scapular notching (30-40% radiographically, usually asymptomatic), infection (2-3%), and mechanical complications (loosening, fracture) - and is generally reserved for patients over 65-70 years given concerns about long-term implant survival and revision options in younger patients.

WorkCover and compensation considerations are particularly relevant for massive rotator cuff tears in the Australian context. Many patients sustain acute-on-chronic tears during manual work (lifting, overhead activities) and seek compensation for surgery and lost income. Determining work-relatedness versus pre-existing degenerative disease is often contentious - the presence of Goutallier Grade 3-4 fatty infiltration on initial MRI indicates chronic muscle atrophy predating any acute event, which may complicate compensation claims. Surgeons must provide detailed functional capacity evaluations for WorkCover insurers, including specific limitations (no overhead work, lifting restrictions, no repetitive shoulder use) and return-to-work timelines. The medicolegal implications are significant - failure to properly assess muscle quality and offer appropriate treatment (attempting repair of irreparable tear with Goutallier 4 changes, or conversely denying surgery to a patient who would benefit from RSA) can result in poor outcomes and potential negligence claims.

Treatment Algorithm Based on Patient Factors

Fatty Infiltration Predicts Repair Outcome

Goutallier D, Postel JM, Bernageau J, et al. • Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (1994)
Key Findings:
  • Goutallier classification: Grades 0-4 based on fat/muscle ratio on CT (now MRI)
  • Grade 0: Normal muscle, Grade 1: Fatty streaks, Grade 2: Less fat than muscle
  • Grade 3: Equal fat and muscle (critical threshold), Grade 4: More fat than muscle
  • Fatty infiltration is IRREVERSIBLE even after successful tendon repair
  • Grade 3-4 predicts poor functional outcomes after rotator cuff repair
Clinical Implication: Goutallier grading is essential for surgical planning - Grade 3-4 fatty infiltration indicates muscle has lost contractile capacity, repair likely to fail or provide minimal functional improvement.

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Cuff Tear Arthropathy

Grammont P, Baulot E • Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (1993)
Key Findings:
  • Original Grammont design: Medialized center of rotation, hemispheric glenosphere
  • Converts deltoid to primary shoulder elevator (no cuff needed)
  • Indications: CTA with pseudoparalysis, massive irreparable tears age greater than 70
  • Reliable pain relief (90%) and functional elevation (80% achieve 90°+)
  • Complications: Instability 5-10%, scapular notching 30-40%, infection 2-3%
Clinical Implication: RSA has revolutionized treatment of massive irreparable tears in older patients. Now the standard of care for CTA and pseudoparalysis when conservative treatment fails.

Superior Capsular Reconstruction for Irreparable Tears

Mihata T, McGarry MH, Pirolo JM, et al. • American Journal of Sports Medicine (2012)
Key Findings:
  • SCR uses dermal allograft or fascia lata autograft to reconstruct superior capsule
  • Restores superior stability, prevents superior migration of humeral head
  • Indications: Irreparable posterosuperior tears, age less than 70, no arthritis
  • Results: Pain improvement 70-80%, modest strength gains, preserves joint
  • Complications: Graft failure 10-20%, limited outcomes if Goutallier Grade 3-4
Clinical Implication: SCR is an option for younger patients (less than 65-70) with irreparable tears who want to avoid or delay RSA. Preserves native joint but outcomes inferior to RSA for older patients.

Massive Rotator Cuff Tear Quick Reference

High-Yield Exam Summary

Definition

  • •Greater than 5cm tear
  • •OR 2+ complete tendons
  • •Assess size, retraction, muscle quality

Goutallier (Fatty Infiltration)

  • •0-2: May repair
  • •3: Muscle = fat (borderline)
  • •4: Fat greater than muscle (irreparable)

Treatment Options

  • •Repair if reducible, good muscle
  • •Tendon transfer (lat dorsi, trap)
  • •SCR (younger, no arthritis)
  • •RSA (CTA, pseudoparalysis)

Key Concepts

  • •Pseudoparalysis = loss of force couple
  • •CTA = irreparable + arthritis
  • •RSA converts deltoid to mover
Quick Stats
Reading Time115 min
Related Topics

Inflammatory Arthritis of the Shoulder

Proximal Biceps Ruptures

ALPSA Lesions

Axillary Nerve Anatomy