ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
A gender and size specific evaluation of Grammont-type inlay versus lateralizing onlay stem designs in achieving lateralization and distalization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex-associated differences in deltoid and rotator cuff muscle elongation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty.Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty · 2026Article
- Clinical and radiological comparison of three different reverse shoulder arthroplasty designs for patients with primary osteoarthritis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) new designs enable greater amounts of lateralization to prevent instability and scapular notching and increase range of motion, however, excessive lateralization leads to stress upon the acromion that can result in scapular spine fatigue fractures. Aim of this study was to gender- and size-specifically assess the influence of glenosphere size and different humeral designs on lateralization, distalization, and bony impingement-free range of motion (ROM) in patients undergoing RSA.
methodsComputed tomography scans from 30 osteoarthritic patients (f:15, m:15) and 20 cuff tear arthropathy patients (f:10, m:10) were used to virtually simulate RSA implantation. The efficacy of an inlay Grammont-type system vs. an onlay lateralizing system combined with different glenosphere sizes (36 mm vs. 42 mm) in achieving ROM, lateralization, and distalization was evaluated. Moreover, gender and patient's constitution were correlated to humeral size by radiologically measuring the best-fit circle of the humeral head.
resultsA different amount of relative lateralization was achieved in both genders using large glenospheres and onlay designs. Latter yielded a higher ROM in all planes for men and women with a 42 mm glenosphere; with the 36 mm glenosphere, an increased ROM was observed only in men. The 155° inlay design led to joint medialization only in men, whereas all designs led to lateralization in women. When adjusting the absolute amount of lateralization to humerus' size (or patient's height), regardless of implant type, women received greater relative lateralization using 36 mm glenosphere (inlay: 1%; onlay 12%) than men with 42 mm glenosphere (inlay: -3%; onlay: 8%).
conclusionThe relative lateralization achieved using onlay design is much higher in women than men. Small glenospheres yield greater relative lateralization in women compared to large glenospheres in men. Humeral lateralization using onlay designs should be used cautiously in women, as they lead to great relative lateralization increasing stress onto the acromion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic Science Study, Computer Modeling.
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.