ArticleInternational orthopaedics2026
Robotic assistance improves reproducibility of planned glenoid baseplate inclination in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccurate glenoid baseplate inclination is an important technical goal in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), but reliably achieving the planned target remains challenging. We compared deviation from planned baseplate inclination between conventional and robotic-assisted RSA using the Mako robotic system (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI).
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed consecutive primary RSAs performed by a single fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon over one year. All cases were planned using Blueprint software (Stryker). Achieved inclination was measured on standardized postoperative radiographs using the RSA angle by two blinded reviewers and averaged for analysis. The primary outcome was absolute deviation from planned inclination. Secondary outcomes included variability in inclination error, the proportion of cases within 5° and 10° of plan, and outliers greater than 10°.
resultsA total of 103 RSAs were included (42 conventional, 61 robotic-assisted). Baseline characteristics were comparable except for body mass index (BMI). Mean absolute deviation was lower with robotic assistance but did not reach significance (2.7° ± 2.1° vs 3.9° ± 3.7°; P = .07). Robotic assistance significantly reduced variability in inclination error (SD 2.1° vs 3.7°; Levene P = .02, F test P < .001). No robotic case deviated more than 10° from plan, compared with 4 of 42 conventional cases (0% vs 10%; P = .03).
conclusionIn a single-surgeon series, conventional and robotic-assisted RSA achieved similar mean radiographic baseplate inclination accuracy, but robotic assistance reduced error variability and eliminated large outliers. These findings suggest that the value of robotic assistance may lie not in marginal improvements in average accuracy, but in narrowing the error distribution and improving the reproducibility of component placement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42507191What 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.