ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024
Functional outcomes and survivorship following aseptic revision shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Revision shoulder arthroplasty (SA) is a surgical procedure performed to address complications or failures of primary total SA. However, limited evidence exists regarding the functional outcomes and longevity of implants following revision. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent revision SA for failed primary arthroplasty at a single institution between 2009 and 2021 with a minimum of 2-years follow-up. Data was collected from medical records, including type of arthroplasty (anatomic total SA [TSA], reverse total SA [RSA], or hemi-SA [HSA]), demographics and patient-specific information, functional measurements, and implant survival. Patient reported outcomes were obtained during follow-up by phone. Results: The mean age at index and revision surgeries was 60.5 ± 12.1 years and 64.8 ± 11.1 years, respectively, and average total follow-up was 5.5 ± 3.5 years. The average time to revision was 4.5 ± 5.2 years (range 0.01-24.5 years). Among 99 revision shoulder arthroplasty procedures, 28 were TSA/HA to TSA/HA, 51 were TSA/HA to RSA, 18 were RSA to RSA, and 2 were RSA to HA. Revision surgery significantly improved functional outcomes in forward elevation (preoperative: 79.8 ± 41.0 vs postoperative: 118.5 ± 38.3; p < 0.001), external rotation (preoperative: 27.8 ± 19.3 vs postoperative: 34.3 ± 16.2; p = 0.028), internal rotation (preoperative: glute vs postoperative: S1; p = 0.002), and forward elevation strength (preoperative: 4+/5 vs postoperative: 5/5; p = 0.002). Postoperative patient reported outcomes included: VAS pain (2.2 ± 2.9), SANE (72.6 ± 21.5), ASES (73.3 ± 20.4), and SST (7.7 ± 2.8) scores. The overall 2-, 5-, and 10-year post-revision implant survival rate was 85.48%, 83.06%, and 79.84%, respectively. Patients who had an initial RSA and were revised to RSA were at higher risk of implant failure and subsequent re-revision (RSA to RSA: 1.5 ± 2.5 years vs. TSA/HA to RSA: 2.5 ± 2.1 years vs. TSA/HA to TSA/HA: 4.0 ± 3.5 years; p = 0.0046). Conclusion: Revision shoulder arthroplasty improved patient outcomes post-index arthroplasty failure. Revisions were more likely to be successful when revising from TSA/HA to RSA. Level of evidence: Level III - retrospective comparative study.
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.