ReviewShoulder & elbow2024
Reverse shoulder arthroplasty following failed rotator cuff repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Shoulder & elbow, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Preoperative Hormone Replacement Therapy on Postmenopausal Women Undergoing Rotator Cuff Repair.Cureus · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- The Effect of Vitamin D Deficiency on Post-operative Outcomes Following Rotator Cuff Repair: A Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2025Review
- Trends in Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review of Predominant Indications and the Most Commonly Employed Implant Designs.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Rotator Cuff Arthropathy: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is an established operative treatment for failed rotator cuff repair (RCR) that may not be amenable to revision repair. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical outcomes for patients undergoing RSA following prior failed RCR compared with patients without prior RCR undergoing primary RSA. Methods: A systematic search of articles in Pubmed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines. Comparative studies assessing outcomes of RSA after failed RCR versus primary RSA were included. Results: Seven studies with 2149 total patients were included; 760 patients had a prior RCR and 1389 patients did not have a prior RCR. Prior failed RCR resulted in significantly lower postoperative ASES scores (mean difference [MD], -8.31 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.96, -5.66), less forward flexion (MD, -6.71 95%CI -11.75, -1.67), and higher VAS pain scores (MD; 0.85, 95% CI 0.47, 1.22) when compared to primary RSA. There were no significant differences in external rotation, complications rate, or rate of revision. Conclusion: This study found that failed RCR prior to RSA was associated with lower functional outcomes scores, higher pain scores, and worse range of motion compared to primary RSA without prior RCR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.