ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2023
The Influence of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Implant Design on Biomechanics.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- A CAD-to-Simulink framework for evaluating impingement-free motion in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2026Article
- Radiographic bone resorption after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using a single onlay platform: risk factors and distribution patterns in a Japanese cohort.Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty · 2026Article
- Instability After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Evaluation, Diagnosis, Management.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
- Is a 32 mm glenosphere optimal in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for patients with small glenoid anatomy? : a range of motion simulation study in petite Asian females.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Clinical and radiological outcomes of Inlay versus Onlay humeral stems in reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 145° neck shaft angle: a multicentre retrospective study with a minimum follow-up of three years, an analysis from the registry of the shoulder friends institute.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Effect of combined version on impingement-free rotational range-of-motion in three different implant types in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.JSES international · 2026Article
- Refining Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: From Implant Design to Patient-Specific Strategy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Investigating the surgical outcomes transitioning from a traditional grammont-style valgus-medialized reverse shoulder arthroplasty to a varus lateralized reverse shoulder implant.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
- Early mobilisation versus delayed protocols after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for nonfracture indications: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Does using a low-profile inlay in a Grammont-style shoulder prosthesis decrease the risk of scapular notching?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Trends in Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review of Predominant Indications and the Most Commonly Employed Implant Designs.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Humeral Stem Design in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2024Review
- Optimizing stability and motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 135° neck-shaft-angle: a computer model study of standard versus retentive humeral inserts.JSES international · 2024Article
- The impact of scapular posture and sagittal spine alignment on motion and functional outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a scoping review.JSES international · 2024Article
- Are We Finally Ready for Total Joint Replacement of the Spine? An Extension of Charnley's Vision.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Midterm outcomes of primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of studies with minimum 5-year follow-up.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2024Review
- Recent Advances in the Design and Application of Shoulder Arthroplasty Implant Systems and Their Impact on Clinical Outcomes: A Comprehensive Review.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2024Review
- Increased Deltoid and Acromial Stress with Glenoid Lateralization and Onlay Humeral Stem Constructs in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty.Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty · 2024Article
- An Unusual Case of Onlay Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Disassembly Due to Cement Interposition. A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2023Article
- Narrative review of influence of prosthesis lateralization on clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: glenoidAnnals of joint · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewAs reverse total shoulder arthroplasty indications have expanded and the incidence of its use has increased, developments in implant design have been a critical component of its success. The purpose of this review is to highlight the recent literature regarding the effect of implant design on reverse total shoulder arthroplasty biomechanics. RECENT
findingsImplant design for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has evolved considerably from the modern design developed by Paul Grammont. The Grammont design had a medialized center of rotation and distalized humerus resulting from a 155° humeral neck shaft angle. These changes intended to decrease the forces on the glenoid component, thereby decreasing the risk for implant loosening and improving the deltoid moment arm. However, these features also led to scapular notching. The Grammont design has been modified over the last 20 years to increase the lateral offset of the glenosphere and decrease the prosthetic humeral neck shaft angle to 135°. These changes were made to optimize functional range of motion while minimizing scapular notching and improving active external rotation strength. Lastly, the introduction of preoperative planning and patient-specific instrumentation has improved surgeon ability to accurately place implants and optimize impingement-free range of motion. Success and durability of the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has been contingent upon changes in implant design, starting with the Grammont-style prosthesis. Current humeral and glenoid implant designs vary in parameters such as humeral and glenoid offset, humeral tray design, liner thickness, and neck-shaft angle. A better understanding of the biomechanical implications of these design parameters will allow us to optimize shoulder function and minimize implant-related complications after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
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.