SynthesisClinics in orthopedic surgery2026
Clinical Outcomes and Complications of Superior Capsular Reconstruction Versus Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Irreparable rotator cuff tears without advanced arthritis are difficult to manage. Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) preserves the native joint, while reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) offers reliable function but with higher implant-related risks, especially in younger patients. This study compared outcomes and complications between SCR and rTSA. Methods: This study was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Ovid Medline were searched from inception to May 2, 2025, for studies directly comparing SCR and rTSA in patients with irreparable rotator cuff tears without advanced arthritis. Eligible studies were required to report at least 1 of the following outcomes: patient-reported outcome scores, shoulder range of motion, or postoperative complications. Outcomes of interest included patient-reported outcomes, shoulder range of motion, and postoperative complications. Results: Seven level III studies involving 257 patients in the SCR group (age, 54.2-73.6 years; follow-up, 2.1-51.6 months) and 173 in the rTSA group (age, 63-77 years; follow-up, 24-48.3 months) met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between SCR and rTSA in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (mean difference [MD] = 1.66; 95% CI, -3.44 to 6.77; Conclusions: At short- to midterm follow-up, SCR provides similar clinical outcomes to rTSA in patients with irreparable rotator cuff tears without advanced arthritis. However, the complication rate was higher in the rTSA group. Complications following SCR were primarily graft- or tendon-related, whereas rTSA complications were more often mechanical or bone-related.
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.