Table 2.

Results (possible treatment options, randomized and non-randomized studies).

Study	Study design	Treatment	Comparison	Sample size	Age at surgery	Length of follow-up (months)	Functional outcome (mean CMS and DASH score)	Retear rate	Average degree of FI	% stage 2–3 Goutallier
										2	3
Boileau et al4	Cohort	Bicepstenotomy/ Bicepstenodesis	Tenotomy vs. Tenodesis	72	Tenotomy: 73.1 ± 6.2	35 ± 7	CMS:	/	ISP 2.33	29	22
					Tenodesis: 69.8 ± 6.4		Overall: 66.5 ± 16.3
Bryant et al42	RCT	Cuff repair	Repair alone vs. repair and augmentationporcine small intestine submucosa (SIS)	62	56.6 ± 10.8	24	CMS:	60%	SSP: 1.5	61	3
							SIS: 79.3 ± 3.5
							No SIS: 87.5 ± 3.7
Cho and Rhee9	Prognostic	Cuff repair	Intact vs. Retear	169	Intact	39 (24–83)	/	22.5%	/	10	8
					53.2 (38–67)
					Retear
					58.4 (45–74)
Cho et al17	Cohort	Cuff repair	Single vs. double row	64		7.5 (3–29)	CMS:	39%	/	7	63
					Single: 58.1 ± 6.07		Single: 77.4
					Double: 57.6 ± 10.39		Double: 76.2
Choi et al18	Prognostic	Cuff repair	/	147	62.8 (46–79)	23.4 (12–48)	CMS: 84.3 (11–100)	17.0%	SSP:	46	27
									2.22
Chung et al10, 19, 38	Prognostic	Cuff repair	/	288	59.53 ± 8.41	13.5 ± 2.7	/	22.9%	SSP:	/	/
									2.35 ± 1.05
Chung et al19	Prognostic	Cuff repair	Intact vs. retear	108	63.7 ± 6.4	31.7 ± 15.8	CMS:	39.8%	SSP: 3.13	/	/
							Intact: 77.1 ± 32.9		Intact: 2.84
							Retear: 67.2 ± 27.2 (NS)		Retear: 3.55
Fuchs et al20	Prognostic	Cuff repair (open)	/	32	59.0 (40–75)	38 (24–53)	CMS: 78.1	13%	SSP:	/	/
									Intact: 0.8
									Retear: 1.0
Grasso et al21	RCT	Cuff repair	Single vs. double row	72	Single: 58.3 ± 10.3	24.8 ± 1.4	SeeTable 3	/	/	39	24
					Double: 55.2 ± 6.5
Iannotti et al22	Prognostic	Cuff repair	Intact vs. Retear	113	Intact: 58.6 ± 9.4	12	/	17%	Intact: 2.13± 0.65	9	0
					Retear: 59.1 ± 9.09				Retear: 2.39 ± 0.76
Kim et al23	Prognostic	Cuff repair	Intact vs. Retear	66	61.2 (50–75)	23.5 (15–38)	CMS:	42.4%	SSP:	/	/
							Intact: 78.5		Intact: 1.74 ± 0.92
							Retear: 70.6		Retear 2.54 ± 0.84
Kukkonen et al41	RCT	Cuff repair/conservative/acromioplasty		180		24	CMS improvement:	31% cuff repair group	/
			1. Conservative		Conservative: 64 ± 5.6		1. 18.4 (14.2–22.6)			1. 32 (53%)	1. 1 (2%)
			2. Acromioplasty		Acromioplasty: 65 ± 5.1		2. 20.5 (16.4–24.6)			2. 29 (48%)	2. 5 (8%)
			3. Cuff repair		Cuff repair 65 ± 5.8		3. 22.6 (18.4–26.8) (p = 0.38)			3. 30 (53%)	3. 2 (4%)
Lapner et al24	Prognostic	Anatomic total shoulder	/	62	67 (34–90)	12	/	/	SSP 1.41	34	3
Mellado et al25	Prognostic	Partial and complete cuff repair (open)	/	6 vs. 22	59.8 ± 6.8	44.4 (13–96)	/	68%	SSP: 1.52 ± 0.8	/	/
Milano et al26	RCT	Cuff repair	Bio vs. metal anchors	110	Bio: 62.8 ± 7.9	24.4 ± 2.6	SeeTable 3	/	/	34	29
					Metal: 60.4 ± 8.6
Milano et al27	RCT	Cuff repair	+/− subacromial decompression	80	61 ± 7.0	24	SeeTable 3	/	/	38	25
					59.7 ± 9.7
Milano et al28	RCT	Cuff repair	+/− Microfracture	80		28.1 ± 3	CMS:	/	SSP: 1.97	34	25
					Microfracture 63.1 ± 9.2		Microfracture: 92.7 ± 16.7
					Standard repair 60.6 ± 10.1		Standard repair: 94.5 ± 14
							DASH: Microfracture: 28.6 ± 21.3
							Standard repair: 23.3 ± 20.1
Moraiti et al29	Cohort	Cuff repair	Over 70 vs. under 50 years old	80	/		CMS:	/	SSP:	30	11
						>70 yrs 13.8	>70 yrs 74.6_12.02		>70 yrs 1.90
						<50 yrs 12.9	<50 yrs 77.18_11.02		<50 yrs 0.81
Nich et al30	Prognostic	Cuff repair (open)	/	47	59	87 (60–133)	CMS: 73.7	12%	SSP: 0.81	/	/
Oh et al31	Cohort	Cuff repair	non-pseudoparalytic vs. pseudoparalytic	58		30.5 ± 18.1 (12–72)	CMS:	Healing rate:	/	7	31
					Pseudo 64.6 ± 9.5		Pseudo: 53.2 ± 18.5	33.3% in the pseudoparalytic
					Non-pseudo 65.3 ± 7.0		Non-pseudo: 79.0 ± 56.0	47.4% in the non-pseudoparalytic group
Park et al32	Cohort	Cuff repair	Single vs. double row	78	55.8	25.1 (22–30)	CMS:	/	SSP:	/	/
							Single row: 76.68 ± 8.56		Single row 1.70 ± 1.07
							Double row: 79.66 ± 4.52		Double row 1.95 ± 1.33
Park et al39	Prognostic	Cuff repair	Intact vs. retear	339	59.8 ± 7.9	20.8 (22–66)	CMS: Overall: 67.1 ± 12.2 (NS between groups)	13.3%	SSP: 1.91 ± 0.82	/	/
Ryu et al33	Cohort	Cuff repair	Conventional vs. modified suture-bridge	71			CMS:	15%	SSP: 0.34	/	/
					Conventional 57.0 ± 4.4	Conventional 58 (44–77)	Conventional 73.4 ± 10.3
					Modified 57.6 ± 4.6	Modified 26 (15–35)	Modified 77.0 ± 9.8
Shin et al40	Cohort	Cuff repair	Small vs. medium vs. large size tears	164	55.2 ± 9	24	CMS: No significant difference between groups	Exclusion criteria		3	0
Van der Zwaal et al34	RCT	Cuff repair	Arthroscopic (AA) vs. mini-open (MO)	100		12	CMS:	13–17%	/	16	0
					AA 57.2 ± 8.0		AA 66 (1.6)
					MO 57.8 ± 7.9		MO 62 (1.6)
							DASH:
							AA 65.6 (60.8–70.5)
							MO 69.1 (64.3–73.9)
Warner and Parsons35	Cohort	Latissimus dorsi transfer	Primary vs. revision	6 vs. 16		25 (18–31)	CMS (age/gender adjusted):	36%	SSP 3.09	27	36
					Primary 62 (38–78)		Primary 69% (58–81)
					Revision 56 (26–75)		Revision 52% (37–75)
Wiater et al36	Prognostic	Reverse total shoulder	/	30	71 ± 10	30 ± 7	CMS: 67.27 ± 13.07	/	SSP 3.1	7	20
Zumstein et al37	Prognostic	Cuff repair (open)	/	27	53.7	9.9 years	CMS:	57%	SSP:	/	/
							Overall: 71		Intact: 1.5
							Intact 81		Retear: 1.5
							Retear: 64

Abbreviations: SSP: supraspinatus tendon; SSC: Subscapularis; ISP: infraspinatus; SIS: small intestine submucosa; yrs: years; +/− microfracturing: with or without microfracturing; +/− subacromial decompression: with or without subacromial decompression

*Tenosan: arginine L-alpha-ketoglutarate, methylsulfonylmethane, hydrolyzed type I collagen and bromelain.