ArticleJSES international2025
Clinical and radiological results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with or without lateralization as revision procedure for failed arthroplasty.
Article in JSES international, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) becomes a common treatment option in the revision setting, common problems associated with Grammont's design such as scapular notching, instability, and rotator cuff weakening occur. Design changes associated with superior outcomes in primary rTSA, such as glenoid or humeral lateralization have not yet been examined in the revision settings. The purpose of this consecutive series of revision rTSA is to evaluate the clinical and radiological short-term results after aseptic and septic revision rTSA and explore potential benefits of metallic glenoid and humerus lateralization. Methods: In this study, patients treated with an rTSA between 2014 and 2020 after failed shoulder arthroplasty were included. Forty-five consecutive patients were divided into comparative groups using lateralized rTSA with metallic baseplate augmentation (latrTSA) and additional humeral lateralization using a 145° onlay curved stem (bi-latrTSA); or no baseplate offset with a Grammont-type 155° stem (non-latrTSA). Further, outcome of postinfection revision rTSAs was compared to aseptic loosening. Constant-Murley-Score, subjective shoulder value, shoulder range of motion including Apley's scratch test, abduction strength, and pain levels were assessed. Radiographs were reviewed for implant loosening, scapular notching, fractures, and osteolysis. Lateralization and distalization shoulder angle were measured at the final follow-up. Results: Thirty-eight patients showed significant improvement in all functional measurements at the final 2-year follow-up compared to the baseline ( Conclusion: rTSA is a viable option for revision cases and presents good results after failed shoulder arthroplasty, including the infected shoulder. The effect of metallic augmentation on clinical results is not comparable to those in literature in primary rTSA setting due to advanced preoperative medialization. However, scapular notching was prevented in all cases with bipolar lateralization.
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.