ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
The role of glenoid version in arthroplasty.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glenoid retroversion is considered a mechanical risk factor for failure of shoulder arthroplasty, often leading to preemptive version correction. However, the necessity of routine retroversion correction in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) remains unclear. This review assesses the impact of glenoid retroversion, posterior subluxation, and superior inclination on implant performance, implant survivorship, and patient outcomes. A narrative review of clinical and biomechanical studies was performed, focusing on retroversion correction, subluxation, superior inclination, and their influence on outcomes in aTSA and rTSA. Key studies addressing minimal or noncorrective reaming, augmented implants, and reverse arthroplasty were synthesized. In aTSA, residual retroversion up to 15° does not consistently affect short- or mid-term outcomes when glenoid seating is adequate. Posterior subluxation and poor initial component fixation are stronger predictors of adverse outcomes than retroversion alone. In rTSA, moderate retroversion between 10° and 20° does not compromise stability or functional outcomes, and correction is typically performed only to optimize fixation. In aTSA, excessive superior inclination increases the risk of humeral head migration, rotator cuff strain, and glenoid loosening. Furthermore, unwarranted version correction may introduce complications such as bone loss, graft resorption, or peg perforation without clear clinical benefit. Current evidence suggests that correction of glenoid retroversion to less than 15° is unnecessary in both aTSA and rTSA. Implant stability, component seating, and soft-tissue balance are more critical for successful outcomes. Surgical strategies should be individualized, prioritizing fixation quality and load distribution over strict anatomic restoration. In cases of severe retroversion greater than 30° with contracture or severe posterior subluxation, rTSA may be preferable, while substantial retroversion with preserved kinematics can often be managed with a fully seated anatomic implant.
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.