ArticleJSES international2025
Errors in implant orientation estimation in novice vs. experienced surgeons during reverse shoulder arthroplasty for a superior glenoid wear pattern.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Glenoid baseplate orientation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty influences clinical outcomes, complications, and failure rates. This study aimed to determine novice and experienced shoulder surgeon's ability to accurately characterize glenoid component orientation in an intraoperative scenario. Methods: Glenoid baseplates were implanted in 8 fresh frozen cadavers by novice surgical trainees. Glenoid baseplate version, inclination, augment rotation, and superior-inferior center of rotation offset were then measured using in-person visual assessments by novice and experienced shoulder surgeons immediately after implantation. Glenoid orientation parameters were then measured using 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) scans with digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) by 2 independent observers with a 1-month time interval between repeat measurements. Bland-Altman plots were produced to determine the accuracy of glenoid orientation using standard intraoperative assessment compared to postoperative 3D CT scan results. Interclass correlation coefficients were produced for measurements, rated as 0.01-0.39 poor, 0.40-0.59 fair, 0.60-0.74 good, and 0.75-1.00 excellent. Results: Visual assessment of glenoid baseplate orientation showed "poor" to "fair" correlation to 3D CT DRR measurements for both novice and experienced surgeon groups for all measured parameters. There was a large discrepancy between intraoperative visual assessments and 3D CT DRR measurements for all parameters. Errors in visual assessment of up to 20° of inclination by experienced surgeons ( Conclusion: Intraoperative measurement errors in glenoid placement are present for both inexperienced and experienced surgeons. Kinesthetic input during implantation may improve orientation understanding.
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.