ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2025
Cement-within-cement technique in revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: complications, reoperations, and revision rates at 5-year mean follow-up.
Article in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) of a previously cemented humeral component is challenging. In hip arthroplasty, the cement-within-cement (CwC) technique has been well described as an effective option. However, for shoulder arthroplasty there remains a paucity of data investigating this technique. The purpose of this study was to determine the mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent a revision rTSA utilizing the CwC for management of the humeral component. Methods: Between 2005 and 2021, 68 revision rTSA using the CwC technique with a minimum of 2 years clinical follow-up were identified from a single institution joint registry database. Revised implants consisted of 38 (55.9%) hemiarthroplasties, 22 (32.4%) anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties, and 8 (11.8%) rTSA. A total of 12 (17.6%) shoulders required an osteotomy (corticotomy or window) to assist with extraction of the cemented stem. The mean follow-up after revision was 5.4 years (range, 2-16 years). Surgical complications, reoperations, revisions, and implant survivorship were assessed. Results: Of the 12 shoulders that required an osteotomy for component removal, 11 (91.7%) were healed. At final follow-up, the overall complication rate was 26.9%. The most common complication was fracture or fragmentation of the greater tuberosity (20.6%, n = 13) with 10 (76.9%) cases showing signs of healing at final follow-up. The overall survivorship free of revision surgery was 88.2% at 2 and 80.9% at 5 years, respectively. The most frequent causes of re-revision surgery were aseptic glenoid component loosening (n = 4) and instability (n = 4), with only 2 (2.9%) patients developing humeral component loosening (at 2 and 5 years, respectively). Male sex was associated with an increased risk of revision surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 3.52 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-10.18]; Conclusion: The CwC technique is a reliable option for revising previously cemented humeral components in revision rTSA. Although a low rate of humeral component loosening was observed, higher rates of complications and re-revision surgery were observed over time secondary to aseptic glenoid component loosening and instability, which are not directly related to CwC technique but to revision surgery in general.
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.