Does scapular muscle training program preoperatively improve the functional outcomes and decrease coracoid pain?: A randomized controlled trial
In brief
Preoperative scapular training did not improve outcomes after rotator cuff repair
In this randomized trial of 50 patients, 4 to 6 weeks of scapular-focused training before rotator cuff repair did not improve pain, function, or coracoid tenderness compared with standard care. More patients improved lower trapezius strength with training, but the difference was not statistically significant; whether targeted prehabilitation can improve muscle recovery remains uncertain.
- Journal
- Journal of ISAKOS : joint disorders & orthopaedic sports medicine (Q1)
- Published
- 3 November 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Athip Kongklam, Sawarin Voravitvet, Puttinan Pingpitayakul, Parunchaya Jamkrajang, Pichitpol Kerdsomnuek, Narumol Sudjai, et al.
- PMID
- 42976660
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jisako.2026.101235
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Orthopedics and Sports Medicine (paper of the day, 5 November 2026): Randomized trial of prehabilitation before rotator cuff repair
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rotator cuff tears (RCTs) are associated with altered scapular mechanics and impaired periscapular muscle coordination, which may persist even after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). Although scapular-focused rehabilitation is commonly incorporated into postoperative protocols, the role of preoperative scapular-focused prehabilitation remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether a structured scapular-focused prehabilitation program improves periscapular muscle strength recovery and symmetry, as well as postoperative clinical outcomes and scapular control, following ARCR. METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled trial enrolled 50 patients with RCTs scheduled for ARCR; the operating surgeon and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Participants were randomized to a scapular-focused prehabilitation group or a control group. The intervention group completed a 4-6-week scapular-focused preoperative rehabilitation program emphasizing scapular stabilization and periscapular muscle strengthening. Clinical outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), the Constant score, the EuroQol-5 Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), the SICK Scapular Rating Scale, and coracoid tenderness, assessed preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. Isometric periscapular muscle strength was measured preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated substantial and progressive postoperative improvement in all patient-reported outcomes, with no statistically significant between-group differences in VAS (p = 0.909), ASES (p = 0.254), Constant score (p = 0.497), or SPADI (p = 0.903) at 6 months. The intervention group showed a higher proportion of patients with improvement in lower trapezius strength than the control group (41.2% vs. 10.5%), though this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.06). Coracoid tenderness resolved progressively in both groups, with no statistically significant between-group differences at any postoperative timepoint (6 weeks: p = 0.825; 3 months: p = 0.137; 6 months: p = 0.622). CONCLUSION: Scapular-focused prehabilitation before ARCR did not improve patient-reported clinical outcomes compared with standard rehabilitation. More patients in the intervention group showed improvement in lower trapezius strength, though this difference was not statistically significant. Further studies are needed to confirm whether targeted prehabilitation improves postoperative neuromuscular recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.