Reverse shoulder arthroplasty following failed rotator cuff repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Jessica M. Welch, Eoghan T. Hurley*, Samuel Lorentz, Mikhail A. Bethell, Bryan S. Crook, Jonathan F. Dickens, Oke Anakwenze, Christopher S. Klifto

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


Background: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is an established operative treatment for failed rotator cuff repair (RCR) that may not be amenable to revision repair. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical outcomes for patients undergoing RSA following prior failed RCR compared with patients without prior RCR undergoing primary RSA. Methods: A systematic search of articles in Pubmed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines. Comparative studies assessing outcomes of RSA after failed RCR versus primary RSA were included. Results: Seven studies with 2149 total patients were included; 760 patients had a prior RCR and 1389 patients did not have a prior RCR. Prior failed RCR resulted in significantly lower postoperative ASES scores (mean difference [MD], −8.31 95% confidence interval [CI] −10.96, −5.66), less forward flexion (MD, −6.71 95%CI −11.75, −1.67), and higher VAS pain scores (MD; 0.85, 95% CI 0.47, 1.22) when compared to primary RSA. There were no significant differences in external rotation, complications rate, or rate of revision. Conclusion: This study found that failed RCR prior to RSA was associated with lower functional outcomes scores, higher pain scores, and worse range of motion compared to primary RSA without prior RCR.

Original languageEnglish
JournalShoulder and Elbow
StateAccepted/In press - 2023
Externally publishedYes


  • meta-analysis
  • reverse shoulder arthroplasty
  • rotator cuff
  • shoulder arthroplasty
  • systematic review


Dive into the research topics of 'Reverse shoulder arthroplasty following failed rotator cuff repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this