ArticleBone & joint open2026
Anatomical versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff : a systematic review.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
Aims: Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) has been the traditional treatment for glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) with an intact rotator cuff. However, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is now being more frequently performed, with its utility in consistent fixation and severe bony deformity. This study systematically reviews available literature comparing aTSA and rTSA in patients with OA with an intact rotator cuff. Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing aTSA and rTSA in patients with glenohumeral OA and intact rotator cuffs. Primary postoperative outcomes were analyzed, including range of motion, patient-reported outcomes, complications, revisions, cost, radiological changes, and satisfaction. Results: In all, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. aTSA demonstrated better range of motion with no difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores and pain outcomes. While complication and revision reasons varied slightly, there was no difference in overall complication and revision rates. Of four studies reporting patient satisfaction, two favoured aTSA. Conclusion: In our population, aTSA and rTSA yield comparable postoperative outcomes. While aTSA may offer a superior range of motion, its clinical value remains uncertain. These findings support the growing consideration of rTSA as a viable alternative to aTSA in this population, although longer follow-up time is required.
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.