ArticleJSES international2025
Cemented vs. cementless stems for reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures: a registry analysis with patient-reported outcomes from a level 1 trauma centre.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is being increasingly used in the treatment of comminuted or unreconstructible proximal humerus fractures. It is currently unclear if cementless rTSA have equivocal revision rates, mortality, and functional outcomes compared to cemented or cementless rTSA. Methods: Two data sources were used for this study. All rTSA performed for proximal humerus fractures between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2020 recorded on the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used to determine revision rate and mortality between cemented and cementless rTSA. Patient-reported outcome measurements, including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Oxford Shoulder Score, and single assessment numerical value were obtained via telephone from Royal Perth Hospital (RPH) patients between 01 January 2010 and 10 February 2021. Results: The study included 83 patients who underwent rTSA for proximal humerus fractures at RPH. There were 4335 rTSA procedures identified at other hospitals nationally. Of these, 54% of rTSA used cementless humeral stems. There was no significant difference in revision rate or mortality between cemented and cementless humeral stems adjusted for age and gender. For the RPH cohort, patient-reported outcome measurements scores included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of 65.9 (CI: 60.6-71.2), Oxford Shoulder Score of 34.6 (CI: 31.9-37.2), and single assessment numerical value of 68.8 (CI: 61.8-75.8). Conclusion: Revision rates and mortality are similar between cemented and cementless humeral stems used for rTSA for proximal humerus fractures. For appropriate patients, cementless humeral stems may be an acceptable first-line treatment for proximal humerus fractures.
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.