ArticleCureus2024
Component Mix-Match for Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Revision: A Case Report.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mix and match in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: overview of current prostheses systems and potential combinations.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although mixing and matching components is a common, safe, and well-documented practice in hip revision surgery, our extensive search indicates that it has not been previously reported for shoulder arthroplasty. This case report presents the use of mixed implants in shoulder revision surgery to reduce morbidity and address flaws in the initial implant design. We describe a case of a patient with multiple epiphyseal dysplasia who was treated for osteoarthritis in his left shoulder with an anatomic shoulder replacement in 2014. In 2018, the patient presented with deteriorating function, increasing pain, and radiological signs of glenoid component wear and loosening. A decision was made to proceed with revision shoulder arthroplasty. Given the patient's young age and intact rotator cuff function, the revision was planned as an anatomic construct. The challenge was a well-fixed, fully hydroxyapatite-coated stem and a glenoid metal-backed component with a failing polyethylene locking mechanism. After extensive discussion with the patient, a combined decision was made to retain the well-fixed humeral stem and revise the glenoid side using impaction grafting with allograft, followed by cementing an all-polyethylene glenoid from a different company. The revision surgery was performed uneventfully, resulting in pain relief and improved function beyond the levels achieved in the initial operation. Notably, the original head and the revision glenoid had a curvature radius mismatch, in contrast to the original design's absolute congruence. Recent studies suggest that such a mismatch, within limits, can recreate normal shoulder kinematics and reduce glenoid loosening.
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.