ArticleShoulder & elbow2022
The addition of preoperative three-dimensional analysis alters implant choice in shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in Shoulder & elbow, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic assistance improves reproducibility of planned glenoid baseplate inclination in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Glenoid morphology in patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty due to fracture.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Correlation of preoperatively planned humeral component size and actual implanted size: a retrospective and prospective evaluation of anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty.JSES international · 2025Article
- Imaging in Hip Arthroplasty Management-Part 1: Templating: Past, Present and Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The primary objective of the present study was to investigate how preoperative imaging modalities including 3D computed tomography (CT) scans with preoperative planning software affect implant choice for shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: X-ray, uncorrected 2D CT scans, and 3D CT scans from 21 patients undergoing primary arthroplasty were reviewed by five shoulder surgeons. Each surgeon measured glenoid version, inclination and humeral head subluxation, and then selected an anatomic or reverse shoulder arthroplasty implant based only on these imaging parameters. Each surgeon virtually positioned the implant. Agreement between surgeons and changes in plan for individual surgeons between imaging modalities were assessed. Results: Average measurements of native version, inclination, and subluxation were similar across all imaging modalities with very good interobserver reliability. Overall, there was a high rate of variability in choice of implant depending on imaging modality. Agreement on implant selection between surgeons improved from 68.6% using x-ray to 80.0% with 3D CT. Introducing age added significant variability, reducing agreement on implant choice to 61.0% with 3D CT. Conclusions: The use of preoperative 3D planning changes implant choice in nearly one-third of cases compared to plain radiographs and improves surgeon agreement on implant choice compared to x-ray and 2D CT.
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.