ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Computed tomography analysis of glenoid size and bone depth: insights for baseplate fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 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: Glenoid morphology plays a critical role in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, influencing implant positioning and fixation. Although advanced Three dimensional pre-operative planning allows patient-specific optimization, a simple and reproducible framework for rapid assessment of glenoid size and bone stock remains lacking. The purpose of this study is to propose a computed tomography-based classification of glenoid size using a reproducible parameter and evaluate its potential as a complementary screening tool for pre-operative planning. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 200 non-pathological glenoids was performed. Measurements included maximum anteroposterior diameter (MAD, representing glenoid width), superoinferior diameter, surface area, and glenoid bone depth. A K-means clustering algorithm based on MAD defined 3 groups. Correlations with patient height were assessed. Baseplate compatibility and fixation potential were evaluated theoretically. Results: Three groups were identified: small (MAD <27 mm), medium (27-30 mm), and large (>30 mm). MAD strongly correlated with glenoid surface area (r = 0.82, Conclusion: This classification provides a simple and reproducible anatomical framework for glenoid size stratification. While not intended to replace patient-specific three dimensional planning, it may serve as a complementary screening tool to anticipate implant sizing and fixation strategies. Validation in pathologic glenoids is required.
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.