ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2023
Comparison of Clinical Performance of Inlay versus Onlay Humerus Implants in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Variability in ultimate humeral height of an inlay humeral stem does not impact outcomes following reverse shoulder arthroplasty.JSES international · 2025Article
- 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
- Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms and Hybrid Computational Intelligence Algorithms for Rehabilitation Classification and Prognosis in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Analysis of three different reverse shoulder arthroplasty designs for cuff tear arthropathy - the combination of lateralization and distalization provides best mobility.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has become the treatment of choice for the management of massive rotator cuff tears combined with cuff tear arthropathy, and many novel designs have been proposed to overcome the shortcomings of classic RTSA. This study sought to evaluate and compare RTSA outcomes among patients with cuff tear arthropathy treated by a medialized inlay humerus implant with a neck shaft angle of 155° or a lateralized onlay implant with a neck shaft angle of 145°. Methods: A retrospective review of 32 inlay implants and 32 onlay implants was performed. The active range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, motor power for elevation and external rotation, and functional scores including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant score, and Korean Shoulder Scoring system were assessed before surgery, at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, and at the last follow-up at least 24 months after surgery. Scapular notching, lateral humeral offset, and deltoid wrapping offset were assessed for radiographic evaluation. Results: The preoperative demographic data of both groups showed no significant differences ( Conclusions: Primary RTSA using inlay or onlay humerus implants was associated with recovery from pseudoparalysis and good clinical outcomes. However, RTSA with onlay humerus implantation led to clinically superior results in terms of external rotation.
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.