Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39324078›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2024

Reverse Allograft Prosthetic-Composite Versus Endoprosthesis Reconstruction for Massive Proximal Humerus Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Outcomes and Complications.

Kevin A Hao, Caroline T Gutowski, Victoria E Bindi, Ramesh C Srinivasan, Jonathan O Wright, Joseph J King, Thomas W Wright, Catherine J Fedorka, Bradley S Schoch, Keegan M Hones

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

10 authors.

Kevin A HaoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA.
Caroline T GutowskiCooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ USA.
Victoria E BindiCollege of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA.ORCID 0009-0003-3080-3402
Ramesh C SrinivasanThe Hand and Upper Extremity Center of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX USA.
Jonathan O WrightDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA.
Joseph J KingDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA.
Thomas W WrightDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA.
Catherine J FedorkaCooper Bone and Joint Institute, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ USA.
Bradley S SchochDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL 32224 USA.
Keegan M HonesDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare the clinical outcomes after proximal humerus reconstruction with a reverse allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) versus reverse endoprosthesis. Methods: Per PRISMA guidelines, we queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of reverse APC or reverse endoprosthesis reconstruction of the proximal humerus for massive bone loss secondary to tumor, fracture, or failed arthroplasty. We compared postoperative range of motion, outcome scores, and the incidence of complications and revision surgery. Results: Of 259 unique articles, 18 articles were included (267 APC, 260 endoprosthesis). There were no significant differences between the APC and endoprosthesis cohort for postoperative forward elevation ( Discussion: Reverse APC and endoprosthesis are reasonable options for proximal humerus reconstruction. APC carries additional risks for complications, warranting evaluation of patients' healing capacity and surgeon experience. Level of Evidence: Level IV; Systematic Review. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-024-01248-7.

Indexed as

DefectInverted shoulderReverse shoulderReverse total shoulder arthroplastyShoulder replacement

Identifiers

PMID39324078
PMCPMC11420417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.