ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Clinical and radiological comparison of three different reverse shoulder arthroplasty designs for patients with primary osteoarthritis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
aimsIn reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), different implant designs range from medializing implants to strongly lateralizing onlay designs with different neck-shaft-angles (NSA). Thus different degrees of lateralization are currently used. Aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of three different implant designs in a homogeneous patient cohort with primary osteoarthritis (OA).
methodsPatients with OA who underwent RSA between 03/2014 and 01/2020 were included and categorized into three groups based on RSA design: group MD (medialized-distalized design: eccentric glenosphere, 155° NSA), group L (lateralized design: + 4 mm centric glenosphere, 135° NSA), group LD (lateralized-distalized design: eccentric glenospheres, + 3 mm baseplate, curved onlay stem 145° NSA). Inclusion criteria were complete clinical and radiological 24 months follow-up (FU) including range of motion (ROM), Constant-Murley score (CS), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV). In addition, scapular notching and adverse events were recorded.
resultsGroup MD including 26 patients (81% female; mean age: 77.9 years) reached 71 (range: 60-85) points in CS and 90% (range: 40-100) in SSV. In group L, 46 patients (98% female; mean age: 75.2 years) achieved a CS of 75 (59-85) points and SSV was 95% (60-100). In group LD, 25 patients (68% female; mean age: 76.3 years) presented a CS of 79 (30-100) points and SSV of 93% (50-100). Group L and group LD achieved significantly better abduction, internal and external rotation (p < 0.001), forward flexion (p = 0.023) and SSV (p = 0.046). Scapular notching was present in 22% of MD patients (13% grade 1; 4% grade 2; 4% grade 4), 16% in group L (all grade 1) and 9% in group LD (all grade 2). No prosthesis related complication occurred in any group.
conclusionIn patients with primary OA, the lateralized and lateralized-distalized designs result in superior subjective satisfaction in SSV and improved ROM in all planes compared to the traditional distalized-medialized implant designs. In all three groups, no implant related complications were noted.
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.