ArticleJSES international2026
Does lateralization and distalization affect revision rates and patient experience in primary stemmed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty?
Article in JSES international, 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: This study examined the association between distalization and lateralization of implant components and revision outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following primary total stemmed reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) using data from a national arthroplasty registry. Materials and methods: All primary total stemmed modular rTSA procedures (excluding custom implants) recorded between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2023, were identified. A total of 25,837 primary rTSA procedures were included. Procedures were classified into 6 construct groups based on humeral and glenoid component features associated with distalization and/or lateralization. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate cumulative percent revision. Cox proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios, controlling for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, primary diagnosis, glenosphere size, and glenoid morphology. Subgroup analyses were performed for inlay and onlay humeral configurations. PROMs collected from November 2018 were analyzed in a subset of patients. Results: Constructs incorporating humeral distalization demonstrated higher revision rates beyond 1.5 years compared with standard components ( Conclusion: Humeral distalization was associated with higher medium-term revision rates despite early improvements in PROMs, highlighting trade-offs in implant selection.
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.