ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2026
Accuracy in predicting 135° neck-shaft angle short-stem and glenoid components size in reverse shoulder arthroplasty with 3D preoperative planning.
Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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
backgroundReverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a widely used procedure for glenohumeral joint degeneration. Despite advancements in 3D preoperative planning, the concordance between planned and intraoperatively implanted components remains unclear. This study evaluates the accuracy of 3D preoperative planning in predicting humeral and glenoid components size in RSA with a 135° neck-shaft angle (NSA) short-stem. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective study was conducted on 84 RSA cases performed between October 2023 and September 2024 at a specialized shoulder surgery center. All cases underwent standardized preoperative imaging, including anteroposterior and axillary radiographs and a 3D CT scan-based planning protocol using BluePrint software. The planned and intraoperatively implanted humeral stems, glenoid baseplates, and glenospheres were compared. Statistical analyses were performed to assess concordance in term of size and identify factors influencing deviations from the preoperative plan.
resultsThe preoperative plan was fully respected in 23.1% of cases for both the humeral and glenoid components. The humeral stem size matched the preoperative plan in 28.6% of cases, with a deviation within one adjacent size in 67.9%. The glenoid baseplate size was concordant in 92.6%, while the glenosphere size matched in 60.7%. Kappa values indicated slight agreement for stem size (κ = 0.12) and moderate agreement for glenosphere size (κ = 0.54). A statistically significant correlation was observed between changes in humeral stem and glenosphere size (p < 0.05). No significant correlation was found with patient age, while sex significantly influenced stem and glenosphere size variation (p < 0.05).
conclusion3D preoperative planning demonstrated moderate to high accuracy for glenoid component selection but lower concordance for humeral stem size. Intraoperative adjustments were mainly related to metaphyseal bone quality and soft tissue tension. Future improvements in planning software should incorporate bone mineral density and humeral osteotomy variability to enhance predictive accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41483076What 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.