ReviewCureus2026
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Versus Hemiarthroplasty for Massive, Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears Without Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears with glenohumeral deficiency present a significant surgical challenge. While hemiarthroplasty was historically the treatment of choice, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) has gained popularity due to its biomechanical ability to restore active elevation. However, high-quality comparative evidence remains scarce. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes and revision rates of rTSA versus hemiarthroplasty for massive rotator cuff deficiency. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify comparative studies evaluating rTSA versus hemiarthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy or massive cuff tears without significant arthritis. Methodological quality was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool for non-randomized studies. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Functional outcomes were analysed using standardized mean differences (SMD), and revision rates were analysed using odds ratios (OR). The overall certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Two retrospective cohort studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified, comprising 158 shoulders (87 rTSA, 71 hemiarthroplasty). Risk of bias ranged from moderate to serious due to confounding factors. rTSA demonstrated superior functional outcomes compared to hemiarthroplasty (SMD=0.64; 95% CI: 0.32-0.97; P<.001). Patients undergoing rTSA achieved significantly greater active forward elevation (113° vs. 58°). There was no statistically significant difference in revision rates between the two procedures (OR=0.58; 95% CI: 0.21-1.57; P=.28), though the trend favoured rTSA. It was found that rTSA provides superior functional recovery compared to hemiarthroplasty for patients with massive rotator cuff deficiency, with a comparable safety profile at short- to-mid-term follow-up. Despite the "very low" certainty of evidence due to the observational nature of available studies, the consistent functional benefits support rTSA as the preferred surgical intervention for this condition.
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.