ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2025
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Primary and Salvage Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humeral Fractures: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study provides a comparative analysis of clinical outcomes between primary and salvage reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), offering valuable insights into the management of proximal humerus fracture (PHF). To evaluate the outcomes of patients treated with RSA as a primary procedure for acute PHF and to compare these with patients undergoing salvage RSA as a revision procedure for fracture sequelae of PHF.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on 42 patients undergoing RSA for PHF between December 2014 and April 2022. The primary RSA group (n = 28, mean age 73.8 ± 4.5 years, 66-81 years) included patients with acute fractures, while the salvage RSA group (n = 14, mean age 62.1 ± 12.3 years, 47-83 years) comprised revision cases for fracture sequelae. Active range of motion (ROM), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Constant score, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were assessed for all patients. Outcomes between the two groups were compared, along with radiographic outcomes and complications recorded at each follow-up. Categorical variables were analyzed using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, while continuous variables were compared using independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests based on data distribution.
resultsAt a mean follow-up of 56 months (24-106 months), no significant differences in gender (p = 0.469) or follow-up duration (p = 0.087) were observed. The salvage group exhibited comparable postoperative ROM (anterior flexion (AF): 101.4° ± 52.3° vs. 115.9° ± 29.1°; external rotation (ER): 26.4° ± 16.4° vs. 28.8° ± 14.1°; internal rotation (IR): 7 ± 2 vs. 7 ± 2; all p > 0.05) and clinical scores (VAS: 1.6 ± 1.9 vs. 1.2 ± 1.5; Constant: 74.1 ± 23.3 vs. 79.4 ± 15.9; ASES: 81.9 ± 15.4 vs. 84.0 ± 13.8; all p > 0.05) to the primary group. However, the salvage group demonstrated significant preoperative-to-postoperative improvements in AF (50.9°, p < 0.001), ER (5.4, p = 0.017), and functional scores (VAS: -4.6; Constant: + 36.9; ASES: + 45.8; all p < 0.05). Complications occurred in 14.3% of salvage cases (2 revisions for periprosthetic fracture and aseptic loosening) versus 3.6% in the primary group. No other major complications such as deep infection, instability, acromial stress fracture, or dislocation were recorded.
conclusionRSA achieves comparable functional and radiographic outcomes for both acute PHF and fracture sequelae over 4 years of follow-up. Salvage RSA provides substantial clinical improvement but carries a higher complication risk, emphasizing the need for meticulous surgical technique and patient selection.
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.