ReviewCureus2026
Three-Dimensional Preoperative Planning in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Implant Positioning Accuracy and Clinical Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate implant positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is crucial for long-term survival and favourable postoperative outcomes. Three-dimensional (3D) preoperative planning, including patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) and navigation systems, has emerged in the past decade to increase implantation accuracy and efficacy. This review aimed to assess the radiological and clinical impact of 3D preoperative planning in RSA. The PubMed and Scopus databases (2010-2026) were systematically reviewed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Inclusion criteria involved English-language studies assessing 3D preoperative planning for RSA, with or without PSI or navigation, and reporting radiological and/or clinical outcomes. Data on study characteristics, patient demographics, RSA indications, 3D planning technology used, radiological outcomes, and functional outcomes were extracted and analyzed. A total of 635 RSAs across 11 studies were included, with a mean follow-up of 42.6 months. The most common indication for RSA was rotator cuff arthropathy. Seven of 11 studies used PSI, two of 11 studies used intraoperative navigation, and two of 11 studies assessed isolated 3D preoperative planning. Most comparative and non-comparative studies indicated significant improvement or high concordance with the preoperative plan in glenoid version, inclination, and entry point accuracy when 3D preoperative planning was used, especially when combined with PSI or navigation. 3D planning improved the accuracy of screw placement and length without increasing complications. Three studies assessed functional outcomes, where the differences between PSI-assisted and conventional techniques were inconsistent. No significant differences were detected in operating time and complication rates with the use of 3D preoperative planning. 3D preoperative planning techniques improve the accuracy of glenoid component and peripheral screw implantation in RSA. Evidence for superior clinical outcomes or differences in surgical parameters and complications remains inconsistent. Future high-quality research is needed to determine the clinical value of 3D planning modalities.
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.