ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Are there biomechanical differences in repair technique for lesser tuberosity osteotomy with stemless total shoulder arthroplasty?
Article in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has evolved as a treatment for advanced shoulder osteoarthrosis, with stemless implants gaining popularity due to reduced risks of stress shielding and complications associated with stemmed designs. However, the optimal technique for repairing the subscapularis with lesser tuberosity osteotomy (LTO) during TSA remains under investigation. This study evaluates the biomechanical performance of two repair techniques-bone tunneling and suture anchors-used for LTO in the context of stemless TSA. Methods: Ten shoulders from 6 cadaveric specimens (3 males and 3 females; aged 58-93 years old) were prepared and allocated to bone tunneling or suture anchor repair groups. Cyclic loading tests were performed, followed by incremental load-to-failure protocols. Outcomes included repair gapping during cyclic loading, initial repair stiffness (derived as the average secant stiffness for 10 of the initial 3,000 cycles prior to fatigue), cycles to failure, displacement of repair, and load to failure. Results: The mean age of the cadavers used in this study was 90.2 ± 14.7 years. Mean failure load were alike, and cycles to failure nearly identical, between groups ( Conclusion: This study suggests that both techniques may yield comparable biomechanical outcomes in cadaveric models of LTO repair, which warrants further exploration. As a pilot project, this study lays the groundwork for future research that could expand upon these preliminary results and contribute to a deeper understanding of LTO repair techniques.
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.