SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2020
Loosening and revision rates after total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of cemented all-polyethylene glenoid and three modern designs of metal-backed glenoid.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07520721 (A Randomised, Multicentre, Prospective, Non-inferiority Clinical Study Analysing Outcomes of a Cemented Pegged Polyethylene Glenoid Component Versus a Hybrid Polyethylene and Trabecular Titanium Glenoid Component in Patients With Osteoarthritis Treated With an Anatomical SMR Stemless Shoulder Arthroplasty), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
A Randomised, Multicentre, Prospective, Non-inferiority Clinical Study Analysing Outcomes of a Cemented Pegged Polyethylene Glenoid Component Versus a Hybrid Polyethylene and Trabecular Titanium Glenoid Component in Patients With Osteoarthritis Treated With an Anatomical SMR Stemless Shoulder Arthroplasty
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancements and current trends in bearing surface technology for total shoulder arthroplasty: a comprehensive review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Review
- Stemless total shoulder arthroplasty with nonspherical polyethylene humeral head.JSES international · 2025Article
- Five-year clinical outcomes of metal-backed, hybrid, and polyethylene glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2025Article
- Anatomical shoulder replacements in young patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Shoulder & elbow · 2023Review
- Can convertible metal-backed glenoid components replace cemented polyethylene glenoid components in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty?BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of clinical outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed primary anatomic vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty.JSES international · 2023Article
- Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes after Anatomical Total Shoulder Replacement Using a Modular Metal-Backed Glenoid after a Mean Follow-Up of 5.7 Years.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- The addition of preoperative three-dimensional analysis alters implant choice in shoulder arthroplasty.Shoulder & elbow · 2022Article
- Two-year results of a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial comparing a second-generation uncemented trabecular metal-backed versus cemented polyethylene glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty.Bone & joint open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral modern designs of metal-backed glenoids (MBG) have been devised to overcome flaws such as loosening and a high failure rate. This review aimed to compare rates of complications and revision surgeries between cemented polyethylene glenoid (PEG) and three examples of modern MBG designs.
methodsLiterature search was carried out using PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar using MeSH terms and natural keywords. A total of 1186 articles were screened. We descriptively analyzed numerical data between the groups and statistically analyzed the categorical data, such as the presence of radiolucent line, loosening, and revision surgery (failure). Articles were divided into three groups based on follow-up duration: < 36-month, 36-72-month, and > 72-month subgroups.
resultsThis study included 35 articles (3769 shoulders); 25 on cemented PEG and ten on the modern MBG. Mean age was 66.4 (21-93) and 66.5 years (31-88). The mean duration of follow-up was 73.1 (12-211) and 56.1 months (24-100). Overall, the rate of the radiolucent line was 354/1302 (27%) and 47/282 (17%), the loosening rate was 465/3185 (15%) and 22/449 (5%), and the failure rate was 189/3316 (6%) and 11/457 (2%), for PEG and MBG, respectively. The results of < 36-month and 36-72-month subgroups showed lower rates of radiolucency and loosening in the cemented PEG group, but there was no significant difference in failure rate (P = 0.754 and 0.829, respectively). In the > 72-month subgroup, MBG was better in terms of loosening (P < 0.001) and failure rates (P = 0.006).
conclusionsThe modern MBG component, especially TM glenoid, seems to be a promising alternative to cemented PEGs, based on subgroup revision rates according to the follow-up duration and overall results of ROM and clinical scores. All polyethylene glenoids tend to increase loosening and failure over time. Three modern MBG designs seem to have no difference in failure, at least in the < 36-month and 36-72-month subgroups compared to the cemented PEG. More long-term follow-up studies on modern MBG should be ultimately conducted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.