ArticleJSES international2025
Variability in ultimate humeral height of an inlay humeral stem does not impact outcomes following reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In reverse shoulder arthroplasty, humeral components can be classified as either inlay or onlay implants. However, factors like the depth of seating and use of spacers can cause an inlay component to vary in height, functioning as an onlay component. It is unclear whether the positioning of an inlay humeral component as inlay or onlay position influences clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of humeral component position on clinical outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective study analyzing radiographic and clinical data from reverse shoulder arthroplasties performed with the same 135° humeral component. Postoperative radiographs were examined to quantify the lateralization and distalization of the humeral component. The distance from the anatomical neck of the humerus to the glenosphere was measured to categorize the implantation as either inlay or onlay. Clinical data, including patient-reported outcomes and range of motion, were compared between groups. Linear regression was used to assess the association of angular measures and clinical outcomes during follow-up. Results: A total of 194 patients with a mean age of 69.3 years (42-90) were included. Postoperative humeral position was classified as a true inlay in 25.3% and some degree of onlay in 74.7%. The modified distalization shoulder angle was greater in the inlay group, whereas the distance to the glenosphere was greater in the onlay group. Baseline patient-reported outcomes were similar, apart from a higher internal rotation at 90° in the onlay group. At 2-year follow-up, only the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index showed a statistically significant difference, with a higher score for the inlay group (88.9 ± 17 vs. 82.8 ± 18.1; Conclusion: Clinical outcomes following reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 135° neck shaft angle designed inlay humeral implant are favorable, with either inlay or onlay implantation. Clinical outcomes were excellent, with minimal differences based on final humeral positioning. The inlay stem offers the advantage to be placed as either inlay or onlay, based on the surgeon's preference or the patient's needs. Patients' characteristics and surgeon preference should be considered when deciding which configuration to use.
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.