ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of a stemless reverse shoulder implant that is fallen out of favor - stemless nano-reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to assess the long-term results of the stemless onlay Comprehensive Nano reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) system.
methodsWe evaluated 35 shoulders at an average follow-up of 106 ± 14.6 months (range, 80-135) (follow-up rate 66%). Patients were evaluated via the Constant-Murley scale, the DASH score (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) and the subjective shoulder value (SSV). Furthermore, a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain intensity was used. The passive glenohumeral range of motion and active total range of motion were recorded. Radiographic assessment was performed on true antero-posterior and axillary views.
resultsThe mean age at surgery was 72.8 ± 6.7 years (range, 47-82). Four patients were revised to a stemmed implant during the follow-up period and were excluded from further assessment. In the remaining group, the Constant score was 82.9 ± 13.1 (range, 40-97), the DASH score was 10.6 ± 17.3 (range, 0-77.5), the SSV was 85.0 ± 18.1 (range, 10-100), and the VAS score for pain was 0.9 ± 1.7/10 (range, 0-7). The mean active flexion and abduction values were 159.8 ± 13.8 and 155.9 ± 20.1, whereas the active external and internal rotation values averaged 34.8 ± 15.3 and 88.9 ± 7.9, respectively. Grade I radiolucency lines (RLLs) were found in 4 patients (14.3%). RLLs > 1 mm were not observed. Two patients experienced early varus displacement of the humeral tray with full reintegration without revision. Revisions to a stemmed implant were performed for atraumatic peg breakage of the humeral tray in 2 patients, early septic loosening in one patient and periprosthetic fracture in one patient. Grade 1 notching was found in 17.9%, and acromion stress fracture was found in 3.6%. Three patients experienced postoperative neurological deficits, with complete recovery in 2 patients.
conclusionsCompared with published data on stemmed and stemless rTSA, the comprehensive Nano rTSA system in the present study has comparable or even superior clinical outcomes at long-term follow-up. The rates of implant-associated complications and revision, however, are high compared with those reported in the literature.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered on 6th August 2025 German Clinical Trial Register, clinical trial number DRKS00037624, https//www.drks.de/DRKS00037624.
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.