ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty2026
Functional and radiographic outcomes of allograft reconstruction for contained glenoid defects in revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a case series.
Article in Journal of shoulder and elbow 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Glenoid bone defects are often encountered in revision shoulder arthroplasty and in the setting of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA); allograft reconstruction is a commonly used technique to manage these defects. Prior studies have reported outcomes after glenoid bone grafting during revision rTSA; however, there is limited evidence on the outcomes following glenoid bone grafting for contained, central glenoid defects during revision rTSA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes following revision rTSA with glenoid bone grafting for a contained central glenoid defect using femoral head allograft. Methods: In this retrospective case series, patients who underwent glenoid allograft reconstruction during revision rTSA for contained glenoid defects with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Intraoperatively, a femoral head allograft was shaped to match a cement mold of the defect and impacted into the central defect followed by placement of a long-post baseplate. Beta angle and Nerot-Sirveaux Classification (if applicable) were assessed on pre-operative radiographs. On post-operative radiographs, beta angle, Nerot-Sirveaux Classification, implant shifting, gross loosening, and graft incorporation were assessed. Active forward elevation was measured pre-operatively and post-operatively. At 2-year follow-up, visual analog scale pain scores and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were collected. Results: Thirteen patients underwent glenoid allograft reconstruction during revision rTSA for a contained glenoid defect by a single surgeon during the study period. Eleven of 13 patients had radiographic and clinical follow-up (47 ± 22 months, range: 24-82 months), with a beta angle of 83.2° ± 11.3° pre-operatively and 89.1° ± 12.0° post-operatively ( Conclusion: In the short to mid-term, revision rTSA with allograft reconstruction for contained central glenoid defects using a long-post baseplate provides excellent radiographic healing, improved range of motion, good function, low pain, and low baseplate revision rates. This technique may represent an effective option for managing contained central glenoid defects in the setting of revision rTSA.
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.