ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2026
Radiograph-Based Evaluation of Uncemented Humeral Hemiarthroplasty.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 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.
- Reproducing Valgus Angle in Uncemented Humeral Hemiarthroplasty.Journal of hand surgery global online · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study identifies whether a novel hemiarthroplasty implant that achieves fixation with an intramedullary screw accurately restores native anatomy based on radiographic parameters. Methods: Six cadaveric specimens were stripped of soft tissue. A novel hemiarthroplasty with modular components was implanted into each cadaver. Radiographic measurements were taken to compare pre- and postimplantation anatomy. Results: The average age of the cadavers was 62.7 years. The trochlear width of the implant averaged 3.39 mm (range, 2.37-4.7 mm) smaller than the native trochlear width. The implant capitellum center averaged 5.28 mm (range, 3.92-7.29 mm) away from the native capitellum center on the anteroposterior (AP) view and 3.74 mm (range, 1.13-6.57 mm) on the lateral view. The distance between the humeral centerline and the center of the implanted trochlea averaged 0.5 mm (0.15-0.95 mm) from the native distance. The offset between the centerline of rotation in the native humerus and in the implant averaged 0.35 mm (range, 0.08-0.87 mm) on the AP view. The angle between the intramedullary (IM) canal of the native elbow and the IM screw was, on average, 0.67° (range, 0.14-2.30°) on the AP view and 1.45° (range, 0.52-2.57°) on the lateral view. The angle between the IM screw and the component body was, on average, 1.95° (range, 0.94-3.0°) on the AP view and 2.21° (range, 0.97-5.55°) on the lateral view. Conclusions: Native anatomy can be matched when implanting a distal humerus hemiarthroplasty that employs modular, intramedullary fixation. Angular laxity between the body component and IM screw accommodates variable patient anatomy of the distal humerus. Clinical relevance: These results suggest that uncemented hemiarthroplasty can reproduce anatomy based on radiographic parameters.
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.