ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2026
Re-revision rate after anatomic-to-anatomic revision of total shoulder arthroplasty: a descriptive study of the Dutch national registry.
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 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
backgroundAnatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) is typically reserved for end-stage glenohumeral arthritis with an intact rotator cuff and adequate glenoid bone stock. With the exponential increase in total shoulder arthroplasty surgeries, complications and the need for re-revision surgery have also increased. Typically, aTSA is revised to a reversed prosthesis, but in some cases the anatomic configuration is maintained. Revision surgery is associated with a higher risk of complications and re-revisions than primary surgery. However, the literature on re-revision surgery after aTSA is sparse.
methodsAn observational cohort study was conducted using data from the Dutch National Registry. We report re-revision rates and reasons and analyze the implant survival of revised aTSA (anatomic-to-anatomic revision). Due to the small sample size, this study is strictly descriptive and is not suitable for identifying risk factors or predicting survival.
resultsOverall, 5,547 primary aTSAs were registered between 2014 and 2023, and the 58 patients who underwent revision surgery with the implant remaining in an anatomic configuration were included in this study. Re-revision surgery was performed in 10 patients (17%). The most common indications for re-revision surgery were glenoid component loosening (n=4) and rotator cuff rupture (n=4). Implant survival at 3 years after the first revision was 80%. All re-revisions occurred within 3 years after revision surgery.
conclusionsWe report a 3-year implant survival of 80% after an anatomic-to-anatomic revision of aTSA. Failure causes and the number of re-revision surgeries in aTSA indicate a high risk of early failure and provide a warning for surgeons considering the retention of an anatomic configuration. Level of evidence: IV.
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.