ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty2026
Inset glenoid component stability and bone removal by implantation depth.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Aseptic loosening of on-lay all-polyethylene cemented glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty is a leading cause of revision surgery and may be accelerated by the rocking-horse phenomenon. In response to this, inset glenoid implants have been developed in hopes that they will lead to lower loosening rates. Presently, little literature exists on the ideal depth of insetting to minimize micromotion while also considering glenoid bone preservation. This study, therefore, evaluated a generic circular inset glenoid component implanted at 4 depths in osteoarthritic glenoids using finite element models. Micromotion under simulated joint loading, bone removal, and underlying bone density were compared. The goal was to determine an optimal inset depth that minimizes micromotion while preserving glenoid bone. Methods: Finite element models of 7 male osteoarthritic scapulae were generated from pre-operative computed tomography scans. Circular inset glenoid components were virtually implanted at 4 depths: 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% (inlay). Glenohumeral joint loading was simulated in 5 directions. Tangential (parallel) and normal (perpendicular) micromotions were measured across 6 backside regions of the component for each loading direction. The volume of bone removed for implantation and bone density within a 5-mm depth region beneath each component were also evaluated. Results: No significant relationship was found between inset depth and tangential micromotion across load directions or locations ( Conclusion: Inset depth was not significantly associated with glenoid component micromotion, although a trend toward reduced micromotion with greater depth was observed. However, deeper insetting required substantially more bone removal and was associated with lower underlying bone density. Considering implant stability, bone preservation, and supporting bone density, these findings support glenoid component insetting at approximately 25-50% depth.
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.