ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty2024
Use of a Low Profile Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Diaphyseal Humeral Cement Restrictor in Shoulder Arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, 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
Abstract
Background: When implanting a cemented humeral stem, a reliable method to prevent inappropriate extension and enable pressurization of cement in the intramedullary canal is required. The aim was to assess the outcomes of a dedicated humeral diaphyseal cement restrictor. Methods: In total 218 shoulders (207 patients) were included in the study, all of whom underwent a cemented total shoulder arthroplasty and a retrospective review was performed. The primary outcomes of interest were device stability in the medullary canal, successful occlusion of the canal, cement extrusion and quality of cement mantle. Results: The majority of the cohort was female (63.3%) males and the average patient age was 71.7 years (SD 8.45). In 81.7% the device was deemed to be stable in the medullary canal. The device was significantly more stable in primary (84.2%) compared to revision cases (64.3%, p = 0.02). In 69.7% Barrack grade A mantle quality was achieved, this was higher in primary cases (74.2%) compared to revision cases (39.3%) (p = 0.00006). Discussion: We noted excellent cementation outcomes using a cement restrictor specifically designed for the diaphyseal humerus anatomy. However, this humeral specific restrictor was noted to be more stable in primary as compared to revision cases.
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.