Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37692877›Full record

ArticleShoulder & elbow2023

Shoulder joint arthroplasty in young patients: Analysis of 8742 patients from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Andrew Phillip McBride, Mark Ross, Phil Duke, Greg Hoy, Richard Page, Chelsea Dyer, Fraser Taylor

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Shoulder & elbow, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew Phillip McBrideGold Coast University Hospital, Southport, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8425-6219
Mark RossBrisbane Hand and Upper limb Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Phil DukeBrisbane Hand and Upper limb Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Greg HoyMelbourne Orthopaedic Group, Windsor, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3142-5891
Richard PageUniversity Hospital and St John of God Hospital Geelong, Barwon Centre of Orthopaedic Research and Education, Deakin University; Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Queensland, Australia.
Chelsea DyerSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, South Australia.
Fraser TaylorGold Coast University Hospital, Southport, Australia.
Brisbane Hand & Upper Limb Research Institute · AUGold Coast Hospital · AUDeakin University · AUHollywood Orthopaedic Group · AUSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Shoulder replacement is a reliable treatment for the relief of pain and improvement of function in patients with glenohumeral arthritis, rotator cuff arthropathy, osteonecrosis and fracture. Limited data is available comparing revision rates for the different types of shoulder replacement when used in younger patients. This study aims to compare the survivorship of hemi resurfacing, stemmed hemiarthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in younger patients using data from a large national arthroplasty registry. Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry was obtained for the period 16 April 2004-31 December 2018. The study population included all shoulder arthroplasty patients aged <65 years. These were stratified into two groups: <55 years and 55-64 years. A total of 8742 primary shoulder arthroplasty procedures were analysed (1936 procedures in the <55 years and 6806 in the 55-64 years age group). Results: In the <55 years age group, there was no difference in revision rate for total shoulder arthroplasty versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at any time point. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty had a lower revision rate after six months when compared to hemi resurfacing (HRA) (p = 0.031). Also, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty had a higher early rate of revision in the first 12 months compared to hemiarthroplasty (p = 0.018). However, from 2 years reverse total shoulder arthroplasty had a lower revision rate overall (p = 0.029).In the 55-64 years patient age group, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty had a lower earlier revision rate. This was statistically significant compared to hemi resurfacing (HRA) (p = 0.028), hemiarthroplasty (p = 0.049) and total shoulder arthroplasty (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that for patients aged <55 years there was no significant difference in the rate of revision when total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty were compared. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty had a lower rate of revision when compared to hemi resurfacing and hemiarthroplasty after 2 years. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty had the lowest comparative revision rate in patients aged 55-64 years overall.

Indexed as

arthroplastyjoint registryless than 65 yearsreplacementrevision rateShoulder jointyoung patient

Identifiers

PMID37692877
PMCPMC10492526
OpenAlexW4226173460

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.