ArticleBone & joint open2026
Is a 32 mm glenosphere optimal in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for patients with small glenoid anatomy? : a range of motion simulation study in petite Asian females.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: In reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), the diameter and position of the glenosphere have a significant effect on impingement-free range of motion (ROM). This effect may be more pronounced in patients with small glenoid anatomy. We tested whether a 32 mm glenosphere provides greater ROM than 36 mm and 39 mm glenospheres across three inferior overhangs (IOs). Methods: Asian female patients undergoing RSA (mean age 75.5 years (SD 5.6; range 66 to 89); mean height 145.9 cm (SD 3.3; range 137.6 to 153.0)) were evaluated using 3D CT planning. Three diameters (32 mm, 36 mm, and 39 mm) and three IOs (1.5 mm, 3.0 mm, and 4.5 mm) were combined (nine simulations per patient). We recorded impingement-free ROM arcs from neutral (0°) to bony impingement (bone-to-bone contact) for extension-flexion (EF), abduction-adduction (AA), and external-internal rotation (RO). Postoperative outcomes were described for the 32 mm subset (n = 11). Repeated-measures analysis of variance assessed the main effects and interactions of diameter and overhang. Results: Both glenosphere diameter and inferior overhang had significant independent effects in each plane (all p < 0.001) without consistent interactions. The 32 mm glenosphere conferred broader arcs of motion in EF, AA, and RO, whereas the 39 mm diameter consistently restricted ROM. A higher IO (≥ 3.0 mm) further expanded motion. Conclusion: In this cohort with small glenoid anatomy, a 32 mm glenosphere and IO ≥ 3.0 mm maximized predicted bony impingement-free ROM, suggesting that downsizing with adequate inferior overhang may be advantageous in a small glenoid vault. Clinical validation accounting for soft-tissue constraints and implant stability is required.
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.