ArticleShoulder & elbow2021
Reassessing the minimum two-year follow-up standard after total shoulder arthroplasty-Is one year sufficient?
Article in Shoulder & elbow, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Speed of return to normalcy after total shoulder arthroplasty.JSES international · 2026Article
- 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
- Lateralising reverse shoulder arthroplasty using bony increased offset (BIO-RSA) or increasing glenoid component diameter: comparison of clinical, radiographic and patient reported outcomes in a matched cohort.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024Article
- Scoping review: Evidence for long-term follow-up and monitoring in shoulder and elbow arthroplasty.Shoulder & elbow · 2023Article
- Innovative technologies for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in Australia: Market access challenges and implications for patients, decision-makers, and manufacturers.Journal of market access & health policy · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUS Food and Drug Administration Investigation Device Exemption studies and academic journals emphasize the importance of two-year follow-up data in reporting outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty, but there is limited data evaluating appropriate follow-up length. We aim to evaluate change in postoperative outcomes and complications between one and two years following anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasties.
methodsWe retrospectively identified 250 patients who underwent anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasties between 2013 and 2016 from a single surgeon arthroplasty registry. Patients without both one- and two-year follow-up data were excluded. We compared American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Visual Analog Scale for pain, and goniometer-measured range of motion.
resultsPatient-reported outcome measurements ( DISCUSSION: Minimum two-year clinical follow-up may not be necessary for future shoulder arthroplasty Investigation Device Exemption and other peer-reviewed investigations. Patient-reported outcomes (ASES and pain score) and range of motion plateau at one year postoperatively without additional complications. One-year follow-up is an acceptable minimum follow-up length. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective analysis.
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.