ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2025
Baseplate coverage in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this systematic review is to produce a qualitative review of the current literature describing the biomechanical and clinical implications regarding the degree of contact surface area between the glenoid baseplate and the glenoid bone in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). Methods: A comprehensive systematic review of the existing literature was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were accessed in June 2024, using relevant keywords. All biomechanical and clinical studies investigating varying amounts of contact between the glenoid baseplate and glenoid bone, as well as clinical studies which discuss a decision on surgical technique based on the amount of baseplate coverage were included. Results: The search yielded 692 titles, and 555 titles remained after duplicate records were removed. A total of 8 studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria, including 6 biomechanical studies and 2 level IV case series. Twenty-one studies included a statement on the impact of rTSA baseplate coverage on surgical management, citing that less than 50%-80% of baseplate coverage necessitates further augmentation to achieve stability. The biomechanical studies reported varying results, with statistically significant baseplate instability seen at coverage levels anywhere from 25% to 60%, when defined by micromotion or displacement. Conclusion: A firmly defined minimum baseplate coverage has yet to be established, however, 75% or greater baseplate coverage allows for adequate time zero fixation across all included biomechanical studies, with coverage as low as 67% potentially providing adequate fixation.
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.