Table 2.

Studies on reverse endoprostheses or APCs

Study	Patients	Mean Follow-up (years)	ROM (°)	Function	Complications
Endoprosthesis
Streitbuerger 2015 [44]	18	2.8	FE: 84 (range, 30–160) ER: 35 (range, 15–50)	MSTS: 82% ± 11%	Instability: 22% Infection: 6% Revision: 6%
Trovarelli 2019 [45]	22	3	FE: 117 (range, 40–180) Abd: 103 (range, 40–180) ER: 58 (range, 45–75)	MSTS: 97% (87% − 100%) ASES: 81 (range, 62–92) Constant: 61 (range, 42–89)	Instability: 18% Aseptic Loosening: 5% Revision: 23%
Houdek 2021 [39]	20	7.4	FE: 76 ± 38 ER: 27 ± 15	MSTS: 67% ± 10% ASES: 61 ± 13	Instability: 0% Infection: 5% Revision: 0%
Trikoupis 2022 [41]	19	5.2	FE: 90 ± 15 Abd: 80 ± 11	MSTS: 76% ± 8%	Instability: 5% Infection: 5% Aseptic Loosening: 5% Revision: 10%
APC
Houdek 2021 [39]	10	7.4	FE: 100 ± 39 ER: 34 ± 11	MSTS: 80% ± 9% ASES: 72 ± 10	Instability: 0% Graft Resorption: 60% Graft Fracture: 20% Revision: 0%
Callamand 2022 [49]	11	2.5	FE: 105 (range, 30–160) ER: 23 (range, −20–80)	Constant: 49 (range, 24–75) SSV: 52% (range, 30%–75%)	Instability: 9% Graft Resorption: 64% Revision: 9%

APC  allograft prosthetic composite, ROM  range of motion, FE  forward elevation, ER  external rotation, MSTS  Musculoskeletal Tumor Society, ASES  American Shoulder Elbow Surgeon, SSV  Subjective Shoulder Value