ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2025
Clinical results of reverse shoulder arthroplasty after failed arthroscopic rotator cuff repair compared to primary cases: a case-control study.
Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a popular treatment, its efficacy in patients with failed rotator cuff repair (ARCR) remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the clinical results of RSA for following failed ARCR. We hypothesized that RSA after failed ARCR would lead to improved clinical outcomes comparable to those of RSA performed without prior surgeries.
methodsBetween January 2017 and December 2022, 143 patients underwent RSA at our institution. We included 85 patients who met the study criteria and followed them for a minimum of 2 years. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent RSA for failed ARCR (group A: 25 patients; mean age, 77.7 years) and those who underwent primary RSA (group B: 60 patients; mean age, 77.9 years). The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, range of motion (ROM), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores, and complication rates were compared between the two groups.
resultsAt the 2-year postoperative follow-up, both groups showed significant improvements in all items. Postoperative outcome or complication rate demonstrated no significant difference between group A and group B: UCLA scores (29.7 ± 3.9 vs 29.3 ± 3.6), JOA scores (87.4 ± 6.1 vs 87.4 ± 8.6), ROM forward elevation (129.1 ± 20.1 vs 133.9 ± 24.1), ROM external rotation (29.1 ± 12.7 vs 29.4 ± 10.7), ROM internal rotation (2.4 ± 1.0 points vs 2.3 ± 1.1 point), NRS scores (0.9 ± 1.2 vs 1.1 ± 1.3), and complication rates (4.0% vs 3.3%). Group A exhibited improvement in all items, and the results were comparable to those in group B.
conclusionsRSA in patients with prior rotator cuff repair demonstrated similar functional outcomes and complication rates to those in patients who underwent RSA without prior surgeries. The study demonstrated that prior ARCR would not be a negative predictor. For patients who are afraid of or cannot consent to artificial joint surgery, recommending ARCR first may be an option.
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.