ReviewOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023
[Revision of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty].
Review in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. 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.
- [Periprosthetic humeral fractures: practical guide for treatment : Classification, challenges and contemporary treatment strategies].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Retrospective analysis of open reduction and locking plate fixation in three and four part proximal humeral fractures with efficacy and complications.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with an inverted-bearing prosthesis as revision procedure for failed anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a long-term multicenter study.JSES international · 2024Article
- One- vs. Two-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Shoulder Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the increasing number of primary arthroplasties, revisions of anatomical prostheses are becoming increasingly important. The most common reasons for revision are glenoid loosening, including protrusion, rotator cuff insufficiency, including instability, and early/late infection. The reconstruction of glenoid defects can be done with an autograft or allograft. Depending on the size and situation, it is carried out in one or two stages. The stemless humeral head replacement and the short-stem prostheses that have been used more frequently in recent years have significantly simplified humeral revision. Platform systems take a different approach with the option of conversion without major interventions on the glenoid or revision stem. Intraoperative complications mainly occur on the humeral side. Postoperative complications include dislocation, component loosening, and infection. Revision of anatomical to reverse arthroplasty shows better clinical outcomes and lower complication rates than anatomical revision.
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.