Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37588059›Full record

ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2023

Biologic graft augmentation for glenoid bone loss in conversion of failed anatomic to reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Brian E Fliegel, Dennis DeBernardis, Elizabeth Ford, Paul Favorito, Sean McMillan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

5 authors.

Brian E FliegelRowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine/Jefferson Health - NJ, Stratford, NJ, USA.
Dennis DeBernardisRowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine/Jefferson Health - NJ, Stratford, NJ, USA.
Elizabeth FordInspira Medical Center Vineland, Vineland, NJ, USA.
Paul FavoritoThe Christ Hospital Health Network, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Sean McMillanVirtua Memorial Hospital Burlington County, Burlington, NJ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glenoid bone loss presents a challenging dilemma, particularly in the setting of failed arthroplasty requiring conversion to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The aim of our systematic review was to examine the success and failure of biologic glenoid bone grafting to address vault deficiencies in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty conversion to rTSA. Twelve articles were included and a complete PUBMED search. Inclusion criteria included glenoid bone grafting for conversion of failed arthroplasty and a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Exclusion criteria included grafting for primary rTSA, and re-revision for infection or humeral loosening. Failures were defined as failure of the graft to radiographically incorporate, symptomatic base plate loosening, and need for further surgical re-revision. Two hundred patients were identified across the 12 articles. Eighteen percent (36/200) of all cases demonstrated failure to radiographically incorporate. Thirteen percent (25/200) of all grafting cases required re-revision due to symptomatic failure (pain or functional deterioration). Femoral shaft demonstrated the highest failure rate at 88% (7/8). Grafting for glenoid bone loss in the setting of conversion to rTSA has an 82% rate of success across autograft and allograft utilization. Further studies are needed to better define the success of autografting versus allografting in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty conversion to rTSA with glenoid bone loss.

Indexed as

Anatomic total shoulder arthroplastyBiologic graft augmentationBone graftingGlenoid bone lossReverse total shoulder arthroplastyRevision shoulder arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID37588059
PMCPMC10426468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.