ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow surgery2024
Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with proximal bone loss: a biomechanical comparison of partially vs. fully cemented humeral stems.
Article in Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe appropriate amount of cementation at the time of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with significant proximal bone loss or resection is unknown. Extensive cementation of a humeral prosthesis makes eventual revision arthroplasty more challenging, increasing the risk of periprosthetic fracture. We analyzed the degree of subsidence and torque tolerance of humeral components undergoing standard cementation technique vs. our reduced polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) protocol. Reduced cementation may provide sufficient biomechanical stability to resist physiologically relevant loads, while still permitting a clinically attainable torque for debonding the prosthesis.
methodsA total of 12 cadaveric humeri (6 matched pairs) underwent resection of 5 cm of bone distal to the greater tuberosity. Each pair of humeri underwent standard humeral arthroplasty preparation followed by either cementation using a 1.5-cm PMMA sphere at a location 3 cm inferior to the porous coating or standard full stem cementation. A 6-degree-of-freedom robot was used to perform all testing. Each humeral sample underwent 200 cycles of abduction, adduction, and forward elevation while being subjected to a physiologic compression force. Next, the samples were fixed in place and subjected to an increasing torque until implant-cement separation or failure occurred. Paired t tests were used to compare mean implant subsidence vs. a predetermined 5-mm threshold, as well as removal torque in matched samples.
resultsFully and partially cemented implants subsided 0.49 mm (95% CI 0.23-0.76 mm) and 1.85 mm (95% CI 0.41-3.29 mm), respectively, which were significantly less than the predetermined 5-mm threshold (P < .001 and P < .01, respectively). Removal torque between fully cemented stems was 45.22 Nm (95% CI 21.86-68.57 Nm), vs. 9.26 Nm (95% CI 2.59-15.93 Nm) for partially cemented samples (P = .021). Every fully cemented humerus fractured during implant removal vs. only 1 in the reduced-cementation group. The mean donor age in our study was 76 years (range, 65-80 years). Only 1 matched pair of humeri belonged to a female donor with comorbid osteoporosis. The fractured humerus in the partially cemented group belonged to that donor.
conclusionPartially and fully cemented humeral prostheses had subsidence that was significantly less than 5 mm. Partially cemented stems required less removal torque for debonding of the component from the cement mantle. In all cases, removal of fully cemented stems resulted in humeral fracture. Reduced cementation of humeral prostheses may provide both sufficient biomechanical stability and ease of future component removal.
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.