ReviewJSES international2025
A review of patient matched implants for shoulder arthroplasty.
Review 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.
- Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Current concepts for the glenoid.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advances in technology have enabled implant designers and shoulder surgeons to strive towards improving implant survival and patient outcomes. Patient matched implants (PMIs) for arthroplasty have developed from the use of technologies such as computer aided design and computer-aided manufacturing technology and three-dimentional printing. Methods: We conducted a computerized search of the electronic databases. We included studies which reported on PMI used in shoulder arthroplasty. Data were extracted by authors, publication year, study level, study type, demographic data (age, sex, sample size), type of arthroplasty, follow-up time, and outcomes. Results: 5 studies were identified as being eligible for this analysis. 55 patients and 57 shoulders were included. The average age was 72.3 across 5 studies. Average follow-up was 28.26 months. 22/57 (39%) were for primary shoulder arthroplasty and 35/57 (61%) were revision procedures. 50/56 (89%) of shoulders improved. 7/56 (13%) of shoulder had a complication. Discussion: PMI for shoulder arthroplasty has so far only been used for severe glenoid bone loss in primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty. PMI can not only be used in the severe glenoid bone loss patient but there are some advantages to using it in the regular patient who attends seeking a shoulder arthroplasty. A limitation of our review is that there are no studies published on PMI for primary shoulder arthroplasty without significant glenoid bone loss. A paradigm shift in shoulder arthroplasty may occur where PMI is not only used for glenoid bone loss and challenging revision cases but also in primary shoulder arthroplasty without significant bone loss.
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.