ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2025
Survivorship, complications, and outcomes of custom glenoid implants 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Custom glenoid baseplates have emerged to manage severe glenoid bone loss in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). While early clinical and radiographic results are encouraging, complication and failure rates remain poorly characterized. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes of custom glenoid implants used in rTSA. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE databases was performed to identify studies using custom glenoid baseplates in rTSA. Inclusion criteria encompassed clinical studies reporting complication rates, failure etiology, and functional outcomes. Data extraction included demographics, follow-up duration, failures, complication rates, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and range of motion. Weighted means and standard deviations were calculated using pooled data. Results: Nine studies encompassing 168 shoulders (63 primary and 105 revision rTSAs) met inclusion criteria. The weighted mean age was 69.7 years with an average follow-up of 31.6 months. The overall failure rate was 3.3%, with glenoid loosening accounting for only 0.6% of cases. The most common failure mechanism was humeral component loosening. The overall complication rate was 30.9%, higher in revision cases (27.8%) than primary (12.9%). There were improvements in PROMs such as the Constant-Murley Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score, Simple Shoulder Test, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluatio, and Visual Analog Score scores. Similarly, patients experienced meaningful gains in active forward flexion (+48.3°-+61.4°), abduction (+33.6°-+34.5°), and external rotation (+11.0°-+24.1°), with superior improvements in primary compared to revision procedures. Discussion and Conclusion: At short term follow-up, custom glenoid components failure rate remained low, with improvements exceeding minimal clinical important differences in PROMs and marked improvement in range of motion. The glenoid loosening rate was 0.6% in patients undergoing rTSA with a custom glenoid component at a weighted average follow-up of 31.6 ± 6.7 months.
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.