SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Impact of the critical shoulder angle on shoulder arthroplasty outcomes: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe critical shoulder angle (CSA), a radiographic measure reflecting the relationship between glenoid inclination and lateral acromial coverage, has garnered increased attention for its potential influence on shoulder arthroplasty outcomes. Despite its significance, the impact of CSA on shoulder arthroplasty outcomes remains uncertain, as conflicting evidence persists in the literature. The purpose of this systematic review was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the available literature, focusing on the functional outcomes and complications associated with CSA in the context of shoulder arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.The English-language articles were screened from databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library Database. Studies involving patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty and evaluated the influence of CSA on complications, clinical scores, and range of motion (ROM) were included. The data were independently extracted by two authors, and evidence quality and bias risk were assessed collectively.
resultsNine studies were included-six cohort studies, one case series, and two case-control studies. When a meta-analysis was not conducted, a consistent trend emerged. A higher CSA was linked to an increased risk of revision surgery after shoulder arthroplasty, primarily due to complications such as prosthetic loosening, glenoid lucency, and secondary rotator cuff failure. However, no substantial correlation was found between the CSA and postoperative clinical score or ROM.
conclusionsA higher CSA correlates with an increased revision rate following shoulder arthroplasty, primarily due to complications such as prosthetic loosening. However, the CSA was not significantly correlated with postoperative clinical score or ROM. This finding underscores the value of the CSA as a predictive factor for revision risk while emphasizing its limited impact on clinical outcomes and shoulder joint ROM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; Systematic Review.
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.