ArticleSeminars in arthroplasty2026
Influence of radiographic viewing perspective on the reverse shoulder arthroplasty angle.
Article in Seminars in 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
Abstract
Background: The reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) angle quantifies inclination of the inferior glenoid and, thus the correction required during reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. There are no data on the effect of two-dimensional (2D) radiographic projection on the RSA angle or on the relationships between 2D true anterior-posterior (AP) views and their three-dimensional (3D) counterparts. Methods: Digitally reconstructed radiographs of the 2D true AP view of N = 68 scapulae, a subset in controlled ante-/retroversion and extension/flexion views, and their corresponding 3D anatomic models were analyzed. The RSA angle was measured on true AP images with the glenoid in profile at the intersection of lines defined by the supraspinatus fossa and inferior glenoid rim. On altered viewing perspectives, the glenoid face was visible, and thus the anterior and posterior rims. Since it was often unclear which was anterior and posterior, for consistency the RSA angle was measured at the most medial and lateral rims, and glenoid midpoint to determine the influence of measurement location. The 3D RSA angle was measured on 3D models using semi-automated techniques. Data were analyzed to determine the effects of viewing perspective and measurement location on the RSA angle and to compare 2D true AP to 3D measures. Results: The 2D RSA angle was 18.1 ± 7.1° (range: 1.1° to 35.3°), while the 3D RSA angle was 10.1 ± 7.3° (-8.1° to 25.7°) ( Conclusion: The 2D RSA angle experiences viewing perspective errors when not measured on a true AP radiograph. The glenoid midpoint provided the most consistent and smallest maximum error, with good to excellent reliability. The 3D underestimated the 2D RSA angle on true AP images by an average of -8.0°, with similar variability. When using 2D imaging, a true AP image is desirable; otherwise, use the glenoid midpoint to minimize viewing perspective errors. Comparisons between radiographic measures and 3D preoperative planning should consider the bias between the two techniques, and 3D measures should be evaluated for their measurement techniques within the respective preoperative planning softwares to ensure consistency and reliability among manufacturers. Level of evidence: Basic Science Study; Cadaveric Study.
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.