ArticlePloS one2025
Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in revision surgery-Indications and results.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) procedures performed worldwide has increased over the last 10 years, with a corresponding increase in revision shoulder arthroplasty (SRSA). SRSA is often used for post-traumatic revision surgery in cases of infections and failure of anatomical prostheses. Data on outcomes with specific detail for each indication for the prosthetic solution as a secondary treatment are scarce, and inhomogeneous.
methodsThe questionnaires were sent by mail to 65 patients who underwent SRSA between January 2014 and November 2023. Based on the indications for SRSA, patients were categorized into post-traumatic shoulder arthritis, humeral head necrosis, failed proximal humerus fractures, failed proximal humerus osteosynthesis, prostheses loosening, and infection groups.
resultsOf the 65 patients included in the study, 39 completed the questionnaire, and the mean follow-up duration was 44 months (range, 12-104 months). The Constant score ranged from 28 points for all 6 groups (range, 38-66). The post-infection group showed the highest results, with 66 points (range, 24-90) on the Constant score; followed by 26 points (range, 49-6) points on the DASH score; and 0.90 (range, 0.763-1) on the EQ-5D-5L. Failed proximal humerus fractures presented the lowest scores: 38 points (range, 22-63) on the Constant score; 51 points (range, 73-30) points on the DASH score; and 0.61 (range, -0.496-1) on the EQ-5D-5L.
conclusionsNo previous study has investigated the influence of indications on the clinical outcome of SRSA so circumstantial. In this study, the highest outcome scores were observed in the post-infection group, whereas the lowest scores were observed in the failed humerus fracture group. Our results underline the influence of the indication on the clinical outcome of SRSA.
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.