Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36964819›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2023

Trends in outcomes following aseptic revision shoulder arthroplasty.

Taylor P Stauffer, Daniel E Goltz, John R Wickman, Jay M Levin, Tally E Lassiter, Oke A Anakwenze, Christopher S Klifto

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Taylor P StaufferSchool of Medicine, Duke University Hospital, Duke University, 40 Duke Medicine Circle, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. taylor.stauffer@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4184-0634
Daniel E GoltzDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
John R WickmanDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Jay M LevinDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Tally E LassiterDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Oke A AnakwenzeDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Christopher S KliftoDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAs the incidence of anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA, RSA) increases, revision procedures will also increase with a corresponding need for counseling patients regarding outcomes. We hypothesized that different revision categories would have different complication profiles depending on both the indication as well as the nature of the prior hardware.

methodsA retrospective review of 1773 cases performed at a single tertiary health system utilized case postings and diagnoses to identify revision shoulder arthroplasty cases. Revisions were classified based on the prior hardware present, with basic demographics and other perioperative and postoperative outcomes recorded within the limits of available follow-up.

results166 surgical cases involving revision of prior shoulder arthroplasty metal hardware were identified with an average follow-up of 1.0 years. Immediate perioperative outcomes of revision cases were similar relative to the companion cohort of 1607 primary cases. 137 cases (83%) required no further revision surgery, while 19 cases (11%) underwent aseptic revision, and 10 cases (6%) were revised for periprosthetic infection. RSA hardware revised to another RSA had the highest repeat revision rate relative to the other revision categories (32% vs < 14%).

conclusionsRevision of reverse shoulder arthroplasty to a repeat reverse has the highest rate of subsequent all-cause revision, and these repeat revisions often occurred for periprosthetic infection. Despite a relatively high long-term complication rate following revision shoulder arthroplasty, immediate perioperative outcomes remain similar to primary cases, providing some preliminary evidence for policymakers considering inclusion in future value-based care models. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III Treatment Study.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, ShoulderShoulder JointHumansReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeArthroplastyOutcomesRevisionShoulder

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.