SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2023
Clinical outcomes of cemented vs. uncemented reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lower revision rate of cemented humeral stem reverse total shoulder arthroplasty compared to cementless humeral stem in proximal humerus fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Radiographic outcomes of the humeral stem after treating a proximal humerus fracture with an uncemented reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a multicenter retrospective review.JSES international · 2026Article
- Do uncemented humeral components perform better than cemented humeral components in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humerus fracture? A New Zealand Joint Registry study.JSES international · 2026Article
- Uncemented versus cemented humeral fixation during reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Review of Current Evidence.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2024Review
- Cemented Versus Uncemented Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures: National Shoulder Arthroplasty Data from Türkiye.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2024Article
- Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humeral Fractures: Is the Bigliani-Flatow Stem Suitable for Tuberosity Fixation and Healing?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Use of a Low Profile Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Diaphyseal Humeral Cement Restrictor in Shoulder Arthroplasty.Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReverse total shoulder arthroplasty is an established treatment method for comminuted proximal humerus fractures. Both cemented and uncemented techniques exist, with uncemented reverse total shoulder offering many theoretical advantages, including improved biologic fixation, absence of cement related complications, and ease of revision if necessary. There are few studies comparing the outcomes of the two techniques.
methodsThe study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A search for studies assessing clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures was performed of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Main outcomes included Constant Score (CS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and complication rate. Inclusion criteria were as follows: indication for arthroplasty was fracture; minimum one year follow up; article in English. Exclusion criteria were as follows: review articles; biomechanical or cadaver studies. Quality analysis was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.
resultsA total of 682 studies were identified through the initial search, with 36 studies meeting all inclusion criteria. There were 24 studies investigating cemented technique, 10 studies examining uncemented technique, and two studies involving both techniques. There was no difference in mean follow up between patients receiving a cemented vs. uncemented rTSA (32.3 months vs. 30.6 months, p = 0.06). Patients who received a cemented rTSA had a significantly higher Constant-Murley score than those who received an uncemented rTSA (59.4 vs 55.9, p < .001). There was no difference between the two groups when comparing ASES Scores (77.5 vs 78.6, p = 0.54) and overall complication rates (11.1% vs 11.8%, p = 0.23).
conclusionBoth cemented and uncemented rTSA are both valid options for treating acute proximal humerus fractures. Cemented rTSA may portend slightly improved clinical outcomes with similar overall complication rates compared to uncemented rTSA for proximal humerus fractures.
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.