Let me give you the honest headline first, then the conditions on it, because a single number is exactly the wrong way to hold this.
For an anatomic total shoulder replacement in a joint with a working rotator cuff, which is what has been described here, the large joint registries and long term series broadly put survivorship in the region of 90 to 95 percent still in place at 10 years, with a good proportion running to 15 or even 20 years. Reverse replacements (a different operation for a different problem) have strong early and mid term results and many good 10 year figures, but the very long term data simply does not stretch as far yet, because the modern designs are younger than the anatomic ones. So "does a reverse last as long as a total" is genuinely "we have less runway of evidence", not "no".
What actually wears or fails matters more than the birthday. In an anatomic total it is usually the glenoid side: the polyethylene socket component can loosen or the plastic wears over many years, and that is the commonest reason one comes to revision. In a reverse it tends to be baseplate loosening, instability, or bone changes around the components. The metal ball and the stem are rarely the weak link. The piece on implants and the materials they are made from walks through why the socket side is the part under most scrutiny.
To the fear about being "too young": age is not the driver, load is. A physically heavy life, repeated impact, or regularly lifting substantial weight overhead puts more cumulative demand on the socket fixation, and that, not the number 62, is what can shorten survival. This is why a surgeon may talk differently to a labourer than to someone with a desk job. It is also why deliberately sitting in significant pain for years "to save the implant" is rarely the trade it sounds like, because quality of life now is part of the sum.
On the "you cannot have it redone" belief: that is not correct. A shoulder replacement can be revised. It is honestly a bigger operation than the first, the recovery is longer, and if there is bone loss around the old components it becomes more complex, sometimes converting an old total into a reverse. So it is fair to say revision is harder, not fair to say it is impossible. Knowing that alone stops the word "revision" being a cliff edge in your mind.
The exceptions I would flag: inflammatory arthritis, previous infection, significant osteoporosis, or a shoulder that has already had surgery all change these odds, sometimes considerably. None of the figures above are a prediction for your particular joint. The only person who can weigh your cuff, your bone quality, your imaging and how you actually use the arm is the surgeon who will do the operation, so put the durability question to them directly and ask what THEY see on your scans.
