Study Patients Follow-up (mo) Outcome Revision Rate (%) Component Failure Rate (%) Complication Rate (%)
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty            
Neer et al. [30] 16 30 91% Successful* 6% %30  
Franklin et al. [29] 14 37 %46 pain, %15 instability 30% 50% 50%
Nwakama et al. [30] 7 63 14% successful* 29% 43% 71%
Hemiarthroplasty            
Williams et al. [31] 21 48 86% successful* 0% 0%  
Zuckerman et al. [32] 15 28 87% satisfied 0% 0% 7%
Sanchez-Sotelo et al. [33] 37 60 67% successful* 0% 0% 5%
Goldberg et al. [49] 34 44 76% successful* 0% 0% 6%
Gadea et al. [50] 43 141.9 Constant-Murley score 46,2 38.5%   18.6%
Field et al. [51] 16 13 63% 13% 0% 38%
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty            
Sirveaux et al. [16] 80 44 96% no or little pain 4% 15% 12%
Boileau et al. [39] 21 40 95% satisfied or very satisfied 0% 0% 24%
Frankle et al. [36] 60 33 68% good or excellent 12% 3% 17%
Young et al. [43] 33 38 89% good or excellent 0% 0% 8%
Nolan et al. [52] 67 24 Constant-Murley score 62 0% 0% %23
Ji et al. [53] 42 24 American Shoulder and Elbow score 68 7% 7% 20%
Ek et al. [54] 46 93 Constant score 74 25% 15% 37.5%
Table 2: Clinical outcomes of the patients treated with arthroplasty for rotator cuff tear arthropathy. *: According to the Neer’s “limited goal criteria”