Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Aug 4;29(12):2459–2475. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.07.030

Table I.

Study design and patient demographics

Treatment No. Papers LOE MINORS Score N (M/F) Age (y) Follow-up (months)
Physical Therapy 3 III (1); IV (2) 89.6% 94 (59/35) 68.3 (54–89) 32 (24–65)
Debridement 7 III (1); IV (6) 88.8% 256 (160/96) 65.7 (33–82) 48 (24–120)
Partial Repair 7 III (1); IV (6) 89.0% 226 (122/93)* 62.7 (33–81) 45.2 (24–90)
Graft Interposition 3 IV (3) 85.4% 67 (39/28) 68.2 (51–85) 34.3 (24–86)
Tendon Transfer 11 III (1); IV (10) 88.1% 506 (319/187) 59.2 (53–64.2) 57.7 (24–147)
 Arthroscopic-Assisted 4 IV (4) 89.1% 144 (68/76) 61.7 (59–64.2) 70.2 (24–147)
 Open 7 III (1); IV (6) 87.5% 362 (251/111) 57.7 (53–61) 35.8 (24–77)
SCR 4 IV (4) 81.3% 179 (12/11)* 64.7 (43–82) 44.5 (24–60+)
 HDA 1 IV 87.5% 38 59.4 24
 TFL 3 IV (3) 79.2% 141 (12/11)* 66.4 (65.1–68.0) 51.4 (24–110)
Balloon 2 IV (2) 93.8% 25 68.8 (54–85) 42 (24–60)
RSA 6 IV (6) 85.4% 247 (48/74)* 67.5 (34–86) 39.4 (24–118)

MINORS score represented as weighted average for each treatment strategy.

N=Total number of patients per treatment group reported; M=male; F=female.

Age and follow-up reported as mean (range) in years and months, respectively.

LOE Level of evidence

SCR Superior Capsular Reconstruction

RSA Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

AA Arthroscopic-Assisted

HDA Human Dermal Allograft

TFL Tensor Fascia Lata Autograft

*

Incomplete reporting of number of patients based on gender