Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37957883›Full record

ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2023

Use of custom glenoid components for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Punyawat Apiwatanakul, Prashant Meshram, Andrew B Harris, Joel Bervell, Piotr Łukasiewicz, Ridge Maxson, Matthew J Best, Edward G McFarland

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Punyawat ApiwatanakulDivision of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Prashant MeshramDivision of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Andrew B HarrisDivision of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Joel BervellDivision of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Piotr ŁukasiewiczDivision of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ridge MaxsonDivision of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Matthew J BestDivision of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Edward G McFarlandDivision of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur purpose was to evaluate a custom reverse total shoulder arthroplasty glenoid baseplate for severe glenoid deficiency, emphasizing the challenges with this approach, including short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications.

methodsThis was a single-institution, retrospective series of 29 patients between January 2017 and December 2022 for whom a custom glenoid component was created for extensive glenoid bone loss. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at intervals for up to 5 years. All received preoperative physical examinations, plain radiographs, and computed tomography (CT). Intra- and postoperative complications are reported.

resultsOf 29 patients, delays resulted in only undergoing surgery, and in three of those, the implant did not match the glenoid. For those three, the time from CT scan to implantation averaged 7.6 months (range, 6.1-10.7 months), compared with 5.5 months (range, 2-8.6 months) for those whose implants fit. In patients with at least 2-year follow-up (n=9), no failures occurred. Significant improvements were observed in all patient-reported outcome measures in those nine patients (American Shoulder and Elbow Score, P<0.01; Simple Shoulder Test, P=0.02; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, P<0.01; Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index, P<0.01). Range of motion improved for forward flexion and abduction (P=0.03 for both) and internal rotation up the back (P=0.02). Pain and satisfaction also improved (P<0.01 for both).

conclusionsProlonged time (>6 months) from CT scan to device implantation resulted in bone loss that rendered the implants unusable. Satisfactory short-term radiographic and clinical follow-up can be achieved with a well-fitting device. Level of evidence: III.

Indexed as

ArthroplastyGlenoid bone lossReverseShoulderTreatment outcomes

Identifiers

PMID37957883
PMCPMC10698128
OpenAlexW4388671447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.