ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2025
Uncemented versus cemented humeral fixation during reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Lower revision rate of cemented humeral stem reverse total shoulder arthroplasty compared to cementless humeral stem in proximal humerus fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Does surgical indication influence implant survival in reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A comparative cohort study of fracture and glenohumeral osteoarthritis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Article
- Lower average cortical bone thickness predicts cemented fixation in short-stem reverse shoulder arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Over time, the use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) treating proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) and fracture sequelae has grown significantly due to its demonstrated effectiveness over open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and hemiarthroplasty (HA). Cemented humeral stems have been widely utilized in RTSA for PHF, however cementless alternatives have become increasingly popular. This study seeks to analyze outcomes and complications in patients undergoing RTSA for fracture with uncemented and cemented stems at mid-term follow-up. Methods: Patient records were queried for all patients who underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for fracture with between January 7, 2009 and January 10, 2019 and completed a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Demographics characteristics, post-operative functional measurements, complications, and radiographs were assessed. A 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Results: A total of 23 patients encompassing 11 cemented and 12 uncemented stems met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the uncemented cohort was 70.0 ± 9.8 years with a mean follow-up of 2.6 ± 1.3 years while the mean age of the cemented cohort was 68.9 ± 9.2 years with a mean follow-up of 2.9 ± 1.1 years. No differences in strength, range of motion, or survival between groups were observed. Two patients in the cemented cohort demonstrated humeral component loosening on follow-up radiographs. Discussion: Uncemented and cemented humeral fixation during RTSA for proximal humerus fracture leads to similar outcomes, and thus both are safe and effective methods of achieving humeral fixation in fracture patients.
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.