ArticleCureus2026
Does Subscapularis Repair Influence Range of Motion After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty With a Lateralized Glenosphere?
Article 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
Background The role of subscapularis repair in reverse shoulder arthroplasty remains controversial, particularly with contemporary glenoid designs that lateralize the center of rotation. This study compared early postoperative range of motion in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty with and without subscapularis repair using a single prosthetic platform with a lateralized glenosphere. Methods This retrospective, comparative, single-center study included 66 patients who underwent primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty between January 2021 and December 2025 using the same prosthetic platform (Implantcast GmbH, Buxtehude, Germany) with a lateralized glenosphere and a 135° humeral neck-shaft angle. Forty-four patients underwent subscapularis repair and 22 did not. Active and passive elevation, external rotation, and internal rotation were assessed at three and six months postoperatively according to the standardized method of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. Between-group comparisons were performed for each range-of-motion variable at each time point, and paired observations were used to assess changes from three to six months. Twelve between-group comparisons were performed; the analysis was exploratory, no outcome was designated as primary, and Holm-adjusted p values are reported as a sensitivity analysis. Results At three months, passive external rotation was greater in the group without subscapularis repair (67.08 ± 12.15° vs. 57.65 ± 10.33°; difference -9.44°, 95% CI -18.03 to -0.85; p = 0.033). At six months, active internal rotation was greater in the repair group (median L1/T12 vs. L1; p = 0.023). Neither difference retained statistical significance after Holm-Bonferroni adjustment (adjusted p = 0.358 and 0.281, respectively). No other between-group difference was observed at either time point. Active elevation improved from three to six months in both groups (+19.5°, 95% CI +8.5 to +30.5 in the repair group; +29.1°, 95% CI +8.2 to +50.0 in the non-repair group), while within-group changes in internal rotation did not reach statistical significance in either group. Conclusions In this retrospective, non-randomized cohort, subscapularis repair was associated with nominal differences in early postoperative rotation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a lateralized glenosphere. Greater active internal rotation was observed at six months in the repair group, whereas greater passive external rotation was observed at three months in the non-repair group; however, neither finding remained statistically significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons. No overall range-of-motion advantage was identified for either strategy. These exploratory observations should be considered hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in adequately powered prospective studies.
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.