SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
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.
Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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.
- Clinical Outcomes and Complications of Superior Capsular Reconstruction Versus Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: A Meta-Analysis.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Early retrospective experience reporting short-term outcomes of a cementless modular diaphyseal stem in complex revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Meta-analysis of the efficacy of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and open reduction and internal fixation in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of cemented versus cementless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures (PHFs), with a focus on revision rates, tuberosity union, scapular notching, range of motion, and functional scores. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, incorporating data from studies comparing cemented and cementless rTSA for PHFs. Key outcomes analyzed included revision rates, tuberosity union rates, scapular notching, range of motion, and functional scores.
resultsThe analysis included data from seven studies, encompassing a total of 6,692 cases. Cementless rTSA demonstrated a statistically significant higher overall revision rate compared to cemented rTSA, with revision rates of 5.5% and 4.1%, respectively. Tuberosity union rates were 62.4% for the cemented group and 69.3% for the cementless group. Scapular notching was observed in 12.8% of the cemented group and 7.5% of the cementless group, although this difference was not statistically significant. Importantly, clinical outcomes such as Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores and range of motion showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups.
conclusionsCementless rTSA has a statistically significantly higher overall revision rate compared to cemented rTSA. Despite this, both fixation methods provide similar clinical outcomes for PHFs, including tuberosity union, scapular notching, range of motion, and functional scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40072583What 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.