Table 2.

Baseline characteristics of RSA studies

Study			Number of implants			Follow-up		Age		M/F	Approach	Indications
Authors, year	Implant	Poss. COI	Total	Stemless	Short stem	Mean, mn	Range, mn	Mean	Range	Male %	DP/AS	CTA	Fract. seq.	RA	Cuff tear	Revision	Primary OA	Instab.	Hum. fract.
Atoun et al, 201443	Verso	Yes	31	31		36.0	24–52	73.5	58–93	32	AS	71%	16%	13%
Ballas and Béguin, 201344	TESS	Yes	56	56		59.0	38–95	74.0	55–85	29	DP	59%			36%		5%
Beck et al, 201929	TESS	No	29	12	17	101.6	75–142	72.4	53–88	19	DP	66%		24%					10%
Kadum et al, 201424	TESS	ND	31	16	15	35.0	15–66	69.0	62–76	32	AS	35%	22%	18%			25%
Leonidou et al, 202045	Verso	No	37	37		36.0	12–84	76.9		25	AS	59%	8%	14%		11%		5%	3%
Levy et al, 201646	Verso	Yes	98	98		50.0	24–82	74.4	38–93	20	AS	55%	11%	11%	5%	17%
Moroder et al, 201647	TESS	Yes	24	24		34.2					DP	100%
Teissier et al, 201548	TESS	Yes	91	91		41.0	24–69	73.0	55–89	70	DP 4 AS 87	100%
Total			380	365	15	46.1	12–95	73.6	38–93	35%	DP 23% AS 77%	71%	8%	7%	7%	6%	4%	0.5%	0.3%

Note. RSA, reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Poss. COI, possible conflict of interest; mn, months; M/F, male/female ratio; DP, deltopectoral; AS, anterosuperior; CTA, cuff tear arthropathy; OA, osteoarthritis; fract. seq., fracture sequelae; RA, rheumatoid arthritis; Hum. fract., proximal humerus fracture; Instab., instability; ND, not described.