ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
The role of intraoperative navigation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and its impact on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) has evolved since its introduction, with intraoperative navigation emerging to enhance implant positioning accuracy. While navigation improves glenoid component placement, its impact on functional and patient-reported outcomes remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the role of intraoperative navigation in rTSA and its effect on range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies from inception to April 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized trials, or observational studies reporting ROM and/or PROMs in patients undergoing primary rTSA with intraoperative navigation, with or without comparison to conventional techniques, and a minimum 6-month follow-up. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Methodological Items for Nonrandomized Studies tool. Meta-analysis used random-effects models to calculate mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences for ROM and PROMs, with heterogeneity assessed via I Results: Five cohort studies involving 1,987 patients (751 navigated, 1,236 non-navigated) were included. Meta-analysis showed navigated rTSA significantly improved active external rotation (MD: 4.32°, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.64-6.00, I Conclusion: Our analysis shows primary rTSA with intraoperative navigation to be at least comparable, if not better in certain domains investigated, compared to conventional techniques. Emerging evidence suggests that the greatest utility of intraoperative navigation in rTSA may lie in its application to anatomically complex cases.
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.