ArticleInternational orthopaedics2026
Humeral osteotomy rate during revision shoulder arthroplasty for a standard-length uncemented low-filling humeral stem: a multicenter study.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe need for revision shoulder arthroplasty is progressively increasing. Removal of a well-fixed humeral standard stem during revision shoulder arthroplasty may require techniques such as humeral osteotomy, which may contribute to longer surgical time, loss of humeral bone stock and lower clinical outcomes; however, the incidence and influence of stem design remain incompletely defined. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the incidence of humeral osteotomy during revision shoulder arthroplasty of a single uncemented, standard-length, low-filling-profile humeral stem design with a metaphyseal coating and a smooth diaphyseal stem (Arrow, FH Orthopedics).
methodsIn a retrospective design, all revision shoulder arthroplasty which require stem revision performed at three high-volume centres between 2000 and 2023 were evaluated. Patients were included if in the primary surgery an uncemented, standard-length, low-filling-profile humeral stem design (Arrow, FH Orthopedics) was used. Cemented stems were excluded from the analysis. Demographic data, type of primary surgery (anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA), reason for revision and need for humeral osteotomy were recorded. The primary outcome was the need for humeral osteotomy during revision surgery. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate possible risk factors.
resultsHumeral osteotomy was required in 6% (4/64) of revisions. Patient age, sex, type of primary Implant and revision aetiology were not associated with increased risk for humeral osteotomy (P > 0.05).
conclusionHumeral osteotomy was required in approximately 6% of revision procedures. An uncemented, standard-length stem with a low-filling-profile design could explain the very low rates of humeral osteotomy compared to literature data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42814132What 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.