ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024
Reverse versus anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: A large matched cohort analysis.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The annual utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) has grown exponentially, in part due to the expanded indications of RTSA. This evolution in shoulder arthroplasty prompts the need to evaluate outcomes between ATSA and RTSA. However, many other studies comparing outcomes between ATSA and RTSA lacked a large nationally-represented sample, a matched cohort analysis, or both. In this study, we compare outcomes between patients undergoing ATSA or RTSA in a large matched-cohort analysis. Methods: Patients undergoing RTSA or ATSA from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2016 and 2019 were identified. Groups were propensity-matched based on demographics and comorbidities. We compared medical and surgical complications, length of stay, and total hospital charges. T-tests and chi-square tests were performed for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Odds ratios were calculated as a ratio between RTSA and ATSA groups. Results: Following matching, there were 38,782 patients in the ATSA group and 35,461 patients in the RTSA group. The RTSA group had higher odds of acute renal failure (OR 1.35), blood loss anemia (OR 1.39), and pneumonia (OR 1.19). There were no differences for myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, mortality, periprosthetic fracture, or dislocation. The RTSA group had higher odds of periprosthetic mechanical complication (OR 1.92), but lower odds of periprosthetic joint infection (OR 0.65). The mean length of stay and total hospital charges were both higher in the RTSA group (p < 0.001). Discussion: We found patients undergoing RTSA are at higher odds of inpatient medical complications, including acute renal failure and acute blood loss anemia. RTSA is associated with higher odds of short-term periprosthetic mechanical complications.
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.