ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty2026
Pain relief and durable outcomes after revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty for failed primary arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Outcomes following revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (revision rTSA) are variable, and the risk of re-revision remains considerable. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and outcome predictors after revision to rTSA following failure of a hemiarthroplasty (HA), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, or revision rTSA. Methods: After institutional review board approval, a retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent revision rTSA for failed HA, TSA, or rTSA between December 2005 and December 2020, with ≥24 months of follow-up. Pre-operative and post-operative patient-reported outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], SF-12 Physical Component Summary/Mental Component Summary, visual analog scale [VAS] pain, satisfaction) and range of motion were recorded. Relationships between subscapularis repair, humeral osteotomy, cement use, dominant-side surgery, and number of prior surgeries and final ASES, SANE, satisfaction, and pain were assessed. Subgroup analyses compared outcomes in patients with <5 years vs. ≥5 years of follow-up. Results: Of 41 eligible patients, 37 (90%) were available at final follow-up (25 male [68%], 12 female [32%]; mean age 63.5 ± 10.3 years; mean follow-up 82 ± 46 months). Index prostheses were HA (n = 17, 46%), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 17, 46%), and reverse arthroplasty (n = 3, 8%). Indications for revision included rotator cuff failure (60%), infection (22%), instability (8%), aseptic glenoid loosening (5%), and refractory pain (5%). Significant improvements were observed in ASES (51.5 ± 11.1 to 72.1 ± 17.9; Conclusion: Revision rTSA leads to an improvement in patient-reported outcome measures and pain levels and demonstrates high durability at mid-term follow-up with low complication and failure rates. However, the gains in patient-reported outcome measures generally remain limited to a modest level. In addition, having undergone multiple prior surgeries may negatively affect the outcome. Future studies are needed to characterize the mid-term outcomes and durability of revision rTSA as this study is limited by its heterogeneity.
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.