ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2025
A propensity matched cohort analysis: Cemented vs press fit humeral stem fixation in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Historically, humeral stems were cemented for anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). However, cementless, or press-fit, fixation has been increasingly used. This study aims to compare outcomes and revision rates between cemented and press-fit humeral stems. Methods: Institutional records were searched to identify all patients who underwent aTSA with cemented humeral fixation or press-fit fixation between 2009 and 2021. A 3:1 propensity match based on age, sex, pre-op forward elevation and external rotation was conducted. Mean functional measurements were compared using a 2-Sample Results: There were 35 cemented humeral fixation shoulders matched with 105 humeral press-fit shoulders included in the final cohort. Both groups had similar characteristics at baseline regarding age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, mean follow-up, ROM, and strength measurements. Average age at surgery was 61.88 ± 6.68 years with an average follow-up time of 5.61 ± 2.86 years. Post-operatively, press-fit fixation demonstrated significant improvement in all ROM testing: external rotation (ER), forward elevation (FE), internal rotation (IR)-and all strength testing: ER, FE, and IR. Cement fixation demonstrated significant improvement in all ROM testing but only in FE strength testing. Inter-group post-op ROM and strength testing comparisons revealed superior external rotation (p = 0.007) and forward elevation (p = 0.047) ROM in the press-fit group with similar internal rotation ROM values and similar strength testing. There were higher revision rates in the cement fixation cohort (Cement: 11.4 % vs press-fit: 3.8 %; p = 0.036). Conclusion: The results of this analysis showcase that press-fit fixation is a viable option for aTSA. Press-fit fixation shoulders had better ROM in terms of external rotation and forward elevation as well a better survival time to revision compared to cement fixation.
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.