ArticleJSES international2026
Humeral and glenoid lateralization based on glenoid-humeral axis interval results in functional improvements following reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in JSES international, 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.
- Acromion to greater tuberosity distance: a simple radiographic key to unlocking optimal deltoid tension in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal glenoid or humeral lateralization in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) remains unknown. The author hypothesized that stepwise humeral lateralization and stepwise glenoid lateralization based on the intraoperatively measured glenoid-humeral axis interval (GHI) could improve clinical outcomes compared to consistent lateralization that was assigned irrespective of the GHI. In this study, GHI was measured using the superior approach, but it can also be measured using the deltopectoral approach. Methods: Fifty-four patients were treated with nonlateralized inlay-type implants (group A). Forty patients received the same type of inlay rTSA with an 8.0 mm-thick bony-increased offset (group B). Moreover, 50 patients underwent inlay rTSA with glenoid lateralization (Group C), whereas 45 underwent onlay rTSA with humeral lateralization (Group D). Groups C and D were stratified into 3 subgroups based on their GHI-C1 and D1 (GHI <20.0 mm), C2 and D2 (20.0≤ GHI <25.0), and C3 and D3 (GHI ≥26.0). Subgroups C1, C2, and C3 were lateralized to the glenoid side, whereas D1, D2, and D3 were lateralized to the humeral side. Baseline and 2-year postoperative measurements-active anterior elevation; external rotation at 0° arm abduction; external rotation at 90° arm abduction; pain visual analog scale score; Constant score; and University of California, Los Angeles score-were compared between groups. Results: The consistent lateralization that was assigned irrespective of GHI (group B) did not improve clinical parameters as compared to the nonlateralization (group A), excluding external rotation at 90° arm abduction (65.9 ± 9.6, Conclusion: The stepwise glenoid and humeral lateralization based on the GHI improved outcomes compared with the nonlateralization or the consistent lateralization that was assigned irrespective of the GHI.
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.