Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30511283›Full record

Observational studyInternational orthopaedics2019

One and two-year clinical outcomes for a polyethylene glenoid with a fluted peg: one thousand two hundred seventy individual patients from eleven centers.

Frederick A Matsen, Joseph P Iannotti, R Sean Churchill, Lieven De Wilde, T Bradley Edwards, Matthew C Evans, Edward V Fehringer, Gordon I Groh, James D Kelly, Christopher M Kilian and 9 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in International orthopaedics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Frederick A MatsenDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356500, Seattle, WA, 98195-6500, USA. matsen@uw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6465-4826
Joseph P IannottiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Mail Code A41, G Building, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
R Sean ChurchillOrthopaedic Surgery, Aurora Health Center, 3003 W Good Hope Road, Milwaukee, WI, 53209, USA.
Lieven De WildeShoulder & Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
T Bradley EdwardsFondren Orthopaedic Group, L.L.P., 7401 S Main St, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Matthew C EvansUpper Limb Unit, Melbourne Orthopaedic Group, 33 The Avenue, Windsor, Melbourne, VIC, 3181, Australia.
Edward V FehringerOrthopaedic Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Columbus Community Hospital Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, 4508 38th Street, Suite 133, Columbus, NE, 68601, USA.
Gordon I GrohAsheville Orthopaedic Associates, P.A, 111 Victoria Road, Asheville, NC, 28801, USA.
James D KellyCalifornia Pacific Orthopaedics, 2351 Clay Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA.
Christopher M KilianOrthopaedic Associates of Wisconsin, N15 W28300 Golf Road, Pewaukee, WI, 53072, USA.
Giovanni MerollaShoulder and Elbow Unit, "D. Cervesi" Hospital, Via L. v. Beethoven 46, 47841, Cattolica, Italy.
Tom R NorrisCalifornia Pacific Orthopaedics, 2351 Clay Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA.
Giuseppe PorcelliniOrthopaedic and Trauma Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via Universita, 4, 41121, Modena, MO, Italy.
Edwin E SpencerKnoxville Orthopaedic Clinic, 260 Fort Sanders West Blvd, Knoxville, TN, 37922, USA.
Anne VidilParis Shoulder Unit, Clinique Bizet, 21 rue Georges Bizet, 75116, Paris, France.
Michael A WirthDepartment of Orthopaedics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, MC 7774, San Antonio, TX, 78229-3900, USA.
Stacy M RussDepartment of Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, University of Washington, 4245 Roosevelt Way NE, Box 354740, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA.
Moni NeradilekThe Mountain-Whisper-Light Statistics, 1827 23rd Avenue East, Seattle, WA, 98112, USA.
Jeremy S SomersonThe University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd., Route 0165, Galveston, TX, 77555-0165, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeClinical shoulder science lacks a benchmark against which the early clinical value of new glenoid components can be compared; such a benchmark may be derived from a multicenter study of patients receiving an established, internationally used design of glenoid component.

methodsWe obtained data from 11 centers on 1270 patients having total shoulder arthroplasty using an all-polyethylene component with a fluted central peg. We analyzed individual patient outcomes at 1 and 2 years after surgery. We compared the improvement for each patient to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and calculated each patient's improvement as a percent of maximal possible improvement (MPI).

resultsThe preoperative scores improved from SST 3 ± 2, ASES 37 ± 15, Constant score 36 ± 16, and Penn score 30 ± 19 to SST 10 ± 2, ASES 90 ± 12, Constant 76 ± 13, and Penn 80 ± 24 (p < 0.001 for each). A high percentage of patients improved by more than the MCID (SST 96%, ASES 98%, Constant 94%, Penn 93%) and obtained improvement of at least 30% of the MPI (SST 95%, ASES 98%, Constant 91%, Penn 87%). The clinical outcomes realized with this glenoid design were not worse for the 41% of shoulders with preoperative type B glenoids or for the 30% of shoulders with more than 15 degrees of glenoid retroversion.

conclusionsIndividual patients from 11 international practices having total shoulder arthroplasty using a basic glenoid component design obtained highly significant clinical outcomes, providing a benchmark against which the early outcomes of new designs can be compared to determine whether they provide increased clinical value.

Indexed as

Joint ProsthesisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArthroplasty, Replacement, ShoulderBiocompatible MaterialsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansJoint DiseasesMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritisPolyethyleneProsthesis DesignRetrospective StudiesBiocompatible MaterialsPolyethyleneAll-polyethyleneClinical outcomesGlenoidIngrowthMinimal clinically important differencePegPercentage of maximal possible improvement

Identifiers

PMID30511283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.