ArticleJSES international2020
Comparison of survivorship and performance of a platform shoulder system in anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in JSES international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative glenoid reconstruction strategies in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of standard reconstruction, bony increased offset, and metal-augmented increased offset techniques.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Pooled it
- Outcomes of reverseWorld journal of orthopedics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT's responses to frequently asked questions about shoulder arthroplasty.JSES international · 2025Article
- Analysis of patients with differing short-term rates of improvement and long-term rates of decline in range of motion and after anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.JSES international · 2025Article
- Evaluation of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses involving glenoid augmentation in total shoulder arthroplasty.JSES international · 2025Article
- Disease diagnosis and arthroplasty type are strongly associated with short-term postoperative patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty.Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2024Article
- Outpatient vs. inpatient total shoulder arthroplasty: complication rates, clinical outcomes, and eligibility parameters.JSES international · 2024Article
- Primary Total Shoulder Arthroplasty is Superior to Hemiarthroplasty for the Treatment of Glenohumeral Arthritis: Analysis of 5-year Outcomes in a Large Surgical Database.Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty · 2023Article
- Manual wheelchair use leads to a series of failed shoulder replacements: A case report and literature review.Clinical case reports · 2022Article
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 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContemporary studies note sustained clinical benefit and decreasing complications after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), which warrant a comparison with the standard anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare differences in midterm survivorship between ATSA and RTSA patients treated with a single platform shoulder prosthesis. Secondary objectives include a comparison of the clinical outcomes and complication profile for each procedure.
methodsA prospective analysis of all primary ATSA and RTSA performed by 3 surgeons between 2007 and 2012 was conducted. Selection of the ATSA or RTSA implant configuration was determined by the surgeons per their clinical understanding of each individual patient's glenoid morphology, rotator cuff, and patient expectations. All 778 procedures were performed using a single platform shoulder system.
resultsSurvivorship for ATSA was similar to that for RTSA at all time points; ATSA at 2 and 8 years was 98.5% and 96.0%, whereas RTSA at 2 and 8 years was 98.7% and 96.0%, respectively (
conclusionsOn the basis of this cohort comparison, both ATSA and RTSA demonstrated similar survivorship at 8 years after surgery with multiple surgeons practicing in different countries. Our results demonstrate that the RTSA and ATSA implants have comparable results and can be expected to provide similar implant longevity over the midterm with excellent functional outcomes.
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.