ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty2026
Outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty after failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is the mainstay of treatment after failed anatomic TSA. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate patient-reported outcomes and re-revision rates after rTSA performed for failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: Between 2002 and 2022, 267 shoulders underwent revision rTSA after failed TSA in this single surgeon institutional database. From this cohort, 188 shoulders (70.41%) had minimum 1-year clinical follow-up and were included in outcomes analysis. Outcomes including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, stability score, visual analog scale pain, visual analog scale function, and patient satisfaction were collected both pre-operatively and post-operatively. Range of motion (ROM) measurements were recorded including forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation. Demographics and surgical factors including implant characteristics, use of bone graft, and indication for revision rTSA were included. Re-revisions were identified, and risk factors were analyzed. Statistical analysis including student's t-test, chi-square analysis, logistic regression, and multivariate stepwise regression was performed. Results: The average age at revision rTSA was 67.97 years, and average follow-up period was 61.72 months. Glenoid component loosening (40.82%) and rotator cuff failure (37.45%) were the most common indications for revision rTSA. There were improvements in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores at 1-year follow-up (pre-operative 30.41 ± 16.64, post-operative 66.04 ± 24.93, Conclusions: Revision rTSA after failed TSA demonstrates significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes and ROM at an average follow-up period of greater than 5 years. Baseplate failure is the most common reason for re-revision. In this implant family, larger glenospheres were associated with lower baseplate-related re-revision in exploratory analysis. Use of larger glenosphere sizes (40-44 mm) is associated with lower rates of baseplate failure in this population within an implant system where the glenosphere is designed to contact the underlying glenoid bone. This finding should not be generalized to implant systems that do not share this design characteristic.
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.