ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Review of Superior Capsule Reconstruction and Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tear.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rotator cuff tears are a prevalent cause of shoulder dysfunction, particularly in aging populations, with conservative treatments often proving ineffective for massive or irreparable tears. When non-surgical options fail, superior capsule reconstruction (SCR) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) are two primary surgical techniques utilized to restore shoulder function. SCR involves reconstructing the superior capsule using a graft to stabilize the glenohumeral joint and maintain native biomechanics. Conversely, RSA replaces the joint with a prosthetic system, altering shoulder mechanics to improve mobility and pain relief. While SCR preserves natural anatomy and is associated with positive functional outcomes, it presents challenges, including graft integrity issues and a high failure rate. RSA offers reliable pain relief and functional improvements, particularly in elderly patients, but is associated with complications such as implant loosening and scapular notching. This review explores the indications, surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, limitations, and cost-effectiveness of SCR and RSA for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears. Studies indicate that while both procedures improve function and reduce pain, RSA generally provides more consistent long-term outcomes. In contrast, SCR may be preferable for younger, active patients seeking to delay arthroplasty. Additionally, cost considerations may influence surgical decisions: SCR is less invasive but may require revision surgery, whereas RSA entails higher initial costs but offers greater durability. By comparing these techniques, this review aims to aid in treatment selection based on patient-specific factors, such as age, activity level, and surgical risk.
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.