PURPOSE:
The purpose of this systematic review is to characterize the complications associated with superior capsule reconstruction (SCR) for the treatment of functionally irreparable rotator cuff tears (FIRCTs).

METHODS:
This systematic review was completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Two independent reviewers completed a search of PubMed, Embase, and Medline databases. Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they reported postoperative outcomes of arthroscopic SCR for FIRCTs and considered at least 1 postoperative complication. Statistical heterogeneity was quantified via the I2 statistic. Due to marked heterogeneity, pooled proportions were not reported. All complications and patient-reported outcomes were described qualitatively.

RESULTS:
Fourteen studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The overall complication rate post-SCR ranged from 5.0% to 70.0% (I2 = 84.9%). Image-verified graft retear ranged from 8% to 70%, I2 = 79.4%), with higher rates reported when SCR was performed using allograft (19%-70%, I2 76.6%) compared to autograft (8%-29%, I2 = 66.1%). Reoperation (0%-36%, I2 = 73.4%), revision surgeries (0%-21%, I2 = 81.2%), medical complications (0%-5%, I2 = 0.0%), and infections (0%-5%, I2 = 0.0%) were also calculated.

CONCLUSIONS:
SCR carries a distinct complication profile when used for the treatment of FIRCTs. The overall rate of complications ranged from 5.0% to 70.0%. The most common complication is graft retear with higher ranges in allografts (19%-70%) compared to autografts (8%-29%). The majority of studies reported at least 1 reoperation (range, 0%-36%), most commonly for revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
Level IV, systematic review of Level IV or better investigations.



Polls results
1

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
83% Article relates to my practice (132/159)
13% Article does not relate to my practice (22/159)
3% Undecided (5/159)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

76% Yes (121/159)
15% No (24/159)
8% Undecided (14/159)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

6% Yes (10/159)
88% No (141/159)
5% Undecided (8/159)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

6% Level 1 (10/159)
11% Level 2 (18/159)
25% Level 3 (41/159)
53% Level 4 (85/159)
3% Level 5 (5/159)