ArticleJSES international2025
Analysis of factors influencing optimal humeral-sided reconstruction in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in JSES international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does the rate of revision vary in primary total stemmed anatomic shoulder arthroplasty with short or conventional humeral stems?JSES international · 2026Article
- Stemless anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with a novel anatomically shaped side-specific humeral component: technical tips and literature review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Article
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: The introduction of different humeral implants for the treatment of osteoarthritis was intended to improve the ability to anatomically reconstruct the proximal humerus. New technology should ideally lead to improvements in optimal reconstruction. The primary aim of this study was to compare three humeral implant types (long stem, short stem, and stemless) to replicate the proximal humeral anatomy and assess the impact of transitions across each stem type, including initial learning curves. Methods: This was a retrospective review of 298 patients (175 males and 123 females) who underwent anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty utilizing three following stem types: 145 long stem, 102 short stem, and 51 stemless implants. An AP radiograph which met a criterion of optimal/orthogonal view of the humeral head and stem was selected for every included patient. A best fit circle, an articular surface circle and postoperative measure of neck-shaft angle (NSA) was measured by two independent observers. The distance between the centers of two circles (center of rotation [COR] shift) and NSA were then compared for each stem type. In order to assess transitions in technology, two sets of patients in the stemmed groups were selected: initial year (79 long stem, 62 short stem) and final year (66 long, 40 short) of utilization. A cumulative sum control chart analysis was used to assess the learning curves of each of the stem types by the initial year of utilization according to the radiographic measurement of COR shift. Results: The stemless implant showed best reconstruction with a mean COR shift of 3.0 ± 1.6 mm and NSA of 137 ± 6° ( Conclusion: When assessing reconstruction of the premorbid shoulder joint, the stemless implant had the greatest efficacy and shortest learning curve. Stemless anatomic humeral reconstruction is more replicable in recreating the anatomic shape of the humerus and is quicker to master compared to standard or short stemmed implants but did have a greater initial operative time.
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.