ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Radiographic assessment of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a narrative review of post-operative parameters and measurements.
Review 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: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) has become an established treatment for degenerative and traumatic shoulder conditions. Accurate post-operative radiographic evaluation is essential for assessing implant positioning and alignment. However, considerable variability exists in how post-operative radiographs are interpreted and reported in the literature. This narrative review aimed to synthesize the current evidence on post-operative radiographic evaluation after rTSA and to summarize the most commonly reported radiographic parameters used to assess implant positioning, alignment, and shoulder reconstruction. Methods: This narrative review included studies that provided clear and comprehensive descriptions of post-operative radiographic parameters, resulting in 9 eligible studies. Radiographic measurements including the lateralization shoulder angle, distalization shoulder angle, neck-shaft angle, humeral offset, inferior glenosphere overhang, rTSA angle, filling ratio, acromiohumeral distance, and screw orientation were analyzed in relation to implant positioning and radiographic assessment. Results: The reviewed studies consistently described a range of radiographic parameters used to evaluate rTSA reconstruction on standard radiographs. Lateralization shoulder angle and distalization shoulder angle were used to quantify humeral lateralization and distalization, whereas acromiohumeral distance reflected humeral lengthening and deltoid tension. Neck-shaft angle and humeral offset described humeral reconstruction, while inferior glenosphere overhang and rTSA angle assessed glenoid component positioning. Overall, substantial heterogeneity was observed in measurement techniques and definitions across studies, limiting direct comparison and reproducibility. Conclusion: Post-operative radiographic evaluation remains a fundamental component of rTSA follow-up. Standardized interpretation of routine anteroposterior, axillary, and scapular Y radiographs may improve consistency in reporting and clinical decision-making. The development of validated and standardized radiographic parameters is essential to improve reproducibility and optimize post-operative assessment after rTSA.
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.