ArticleCureus2026
Functional Outcomes After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Comparing Grammont and Lateralized Prosthesis Designs.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is an established treatment option for complex proximal humerus fractures, particularly in elderly patients. Different implant designs exist, including traditional medialized (Grammont-type) prostheses and newer lateralized systems. These designs may influence postoperative range of motion, functional outcomes, and complication rates. Purpose This study aimed to compare rotational mobility, functional outcomes, and complication rates between medialized (Grammont-type) and lateralized reverse shoulder prostheses in patients treated for proximal humerus fractures and related conditions. Methods A retrospective comparative study with level III of evidence was conducted including patients treated with RTSA between 2007 and 2023 at a tertiary referral center. Patients were divided into two groups according to prosthesis design: medialized (Grammont-type) prostheses (n = 13; 48.1%) and lateralized prostheses (n = 14; 51.9%). Functional outcomes were assessed using validated clinical scales, including the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Constant-Murley score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Activities of Daily Living External/Internal Rotation (ADLEIR) score, and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Internal and external rotation were also measured. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Results A total of 27 patients were included (22 female (81.5%); mean age 70.3 ± 9.7 years). No statistically significant differences were identified between groups in external rotation (15° vs 20.7°; p > 0.05), internal rotation (p = 0.54), or other range-of-motion parameters (p > 0.05). Functional outcome scores were similar between groups across all evaluated scales (p > 0.05). Complications occurred in three patients (23.1%) in the medialized group and one patient (7.1%) in the lateralized group. The calculated odds ratio was 3.9 (95% CI: 0.3-43.3), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.23). Conclusions No statistically significant differences were identified between medialized and lateralized RTSA designs in terms of rotational mobility, functional outcomes, or complication rates. Given the small sample size, the study is likely underpowered to detect clinically meaningful differences. Further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are required to better evaluate potential differences between prosthetic designs.
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.