ArticleJSES international2025
Correlation of preoperatively planned humeral component size and actual implanted size: a retrospective and prospective evaluation of anatomic and reverse 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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aims of the study were to (1) evaluate the correlation of planned humeral component diameter with implanted humeral component diameter for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) and (2) to evaluate the correlation of planned humeral components with executed humeral components for stemless anatomic TSA. Methods: Four shoulder surgeons participated in two phases of the study. In the retrospective arm, 3 months of TSA and rTSA cases which were completed with preoperative computed tomography-based planning, but without any humeral planning, were replanned using humeral planning, and the components from the virtual planning compared to the implanted components. In the prospective arm, 3 months of TSA and rTSA cases were prospectively planned by each surgeon. The planned and implanted components were similarly compared. Results: Ninety-seven rTSAs were included (50 retrospective, 48 prospective). In the retrospective analysis, in 60% of cases, the rTSA stem diameter was within one size of the plan; in 84%, it was within two sizes; in 90%, it was within 3 sizes. In the prospective analysis, the rTSA stem diameter was within one size in 73% of cases; in 90% within 2 sizes, and in 94% within 3 sizes ( Conclusion: For the utilized planning software and implants, humeral planning for rTSA affords some predictability for stem diameter regardless of whether assessed retrospectively or prospectively, with 84%-90% of cases within two diameters of the plan. The inlay humeral cup diameter was an exact match to the plan in 84%-90% of cases. For stemless anatomic TSA, the humeral component diameter was an exact match to the plan in 52%-57%, but within one size in 85%-86% of cases. There were no significant differences if the planning was performed retrospectively or prospectively.
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.