SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025
Revision rates and progression to shoulder arthroplasty after arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears.
Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Revision rates and progression to shoulder arthroplasty after arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of osteoporosis on post-operative outcomes following rotator cuff repair.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
- Surgical Positioning in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: Comparable Outcomes but Longer Operative Times in the Beach-Chair Position.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this systematic review was to assess the rate of progression to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) and to other interventions as revision surgeries after an arthroscopic repair of a massive rotator cuff tear (MRCT). Additionally, the review aimed at defining the best arthroscopic approach for the treatment of MRCTs in terms of failure and revision rates.
methodsThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the rates of progression to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients who underwent primary arthroscopic repair of an MRCT with different arthroscopic procedures. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the rate of progression to revision surgery and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
resultsEighteen articles were included in the qualitative synthesis and 14 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, 934 patients and 950 shoulders were involved in the review. Seven-hundred and thirty patients and 735 shoulders were included in the meta-analysis. The proportion of revisions to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was 0.9%, 3.3% and 0.1% for complete repair, partial repair and superior capsular reconstruction, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found across the groups in terms of progression to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (n.s.). The average proportions of revisions to interventions different than reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. were 0.9% for complete repair, 2.0% for partial repair and 2.0% for superior capsular reconstruction again, no statistically relevant difference was found among the groups (n.s.).
conclusionsThe current review finds no statistically significant differences in the progression to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty or other revision procedures among partial repair, complete repair and superior capsular reconstruction for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. It is crucial to understand the long-term outcomes of different surgical techniques for massive rotator cuff tears, particularly regarding failure rates and progression to further procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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.