ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2026
Keeled versus pegged glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis.
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
backgroundGlenoid fixation strongly influences longevity and outcomes in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Keeled and pegged designs are common, but comparative evidence for function, range of motion, and survivorship is inconsistent.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted from database inception through December 2025. Thirteen comparative studies (n=3,219) met the inclusion criteria. Evaluated outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Constant-Murley score, Simple Shoulder Test [SST], visual analog scale [VAS] pain scores), shoulder range of motion (flexion, external rotation, internal rotation), and implant-related outcomes, including failure and revision. Follow-up ranged from short to long-term (up to 26 years).
resultsAcross pooled analyses, no significant differences were observed between pegged and keeled glenoid components in ASES (P=0.69), Constant-Murley (P=0.61), SST (P=0.74), or VAS pain scores (P=0.88). Postoperative flexion (P=0.61) and external rotation (P=0.35) were comparable between groups. Pegged glenoid components demonstrated a statistically significant but small improvement in internal rotation (mean difference, 1.60°; 95% CI, 0.54°-2.66°; P=0.003). Revision rates were significantly lower with pegged glenoid components compared with keeled designs (risk ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.28-0.86; P=0.01), while overall failure rates did not differ significantly between groups (P=0.07).
conclusionsBoth designs yield similar pain relief, functional gains, and shoulder motion across most patient-reported outcome measures. Pegged components show lower revision risk and slightly better internal rotation, although survivorship findings are primarily supported by observational evidence. Selection should be individualized to anatomy, bone quality, and surgical factors, not expectations of superior overall function. Level of evidence: II.
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.