Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40499921›Full record

ArticleBone & joint open2025

Revision of reverse shoulder arthroplasty by indication : a National Joint Registry study.

Olivia O'Malley, Andrew Davies, Mansour T A Sharabani, Amar Rangan, Sanjeeve Sabharwal, Peter Reilly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Olivia O'MalleyDepartment of Bioengineering, Cutrale Perioperative & Ageing Group, Imperial College, London, UK.
Andrew DaviesDepartment of Trauma & Orthopaedics, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Mansour T A SharabaniDepartment of Primary Care & Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College, London, UK.
Amar RanganHull York Medical School & Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Sanjeeve SabharwalDepartment of Trauma & Orthopaedics, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Peter ReillyDepartment of Bioengineering, Cutrale Perioperative & Ageing Group, Imperial College, London, UK.

Funding

British Elbow and Shoulder SocietyRoyal College of Surgeons of England
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), initially designed for cuff tear arthropathy (CTA), is now the most common choice of shoulder arthroplasty in both elective and trauma settings in the UK. Its use has rapidly increased for several indications, including osteoarthritis (OA) with an intact rotator cuff, acute trauma, and trauma sequalae. This study aims to review the revision rates of RSA by indication to assess how the implant is performing for indications for which it was not primarily designed. Methods: Data from the National Joint Registry were obtained from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2022. Data were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics for England and National Mortality Data. RSAs were identified and sorted into mutually exclusive groups by indication. The primary outcome was first revision and the secondary outcome was non-revision reoperation. Results: The revision rates for RSA for CTA were 1.53% (95% CI 1.31 to 1.78) at one year, 3.21% (95% CI 2.86 to 3.60) at five years, and 4.97% (95% CI 4.23 to 5.84) at nine years. For primary OA, they were 1.21% (95% CI 0.95 to 1.54) at one year, 2.71% (95% CI 2.25 to 3.37) at five years, and 5.00% (95% CI 3.62 to 6.88) at nine years. For trauma, they were 1.51% (95% CI 1.15 to 1.99) at one year and 2.67% (95% CI 2.07 to 3.43) at five years. For trauma sequalae, they were 4.25% (95% CI 3.4 to 5.29) at one year and 7.12% (95% CI 5.90 to 8.59) at five years. Between indications, the revision rates were not statistically different except for trauma sequalae, which had a significantly increased risk of revision (p ≤ 0.001). Incidence of non-revision reoperation across the cohort was 1.1% (n = 283 patients), with the most common being manipulation under anaesthesia with or without capsular release (42.03%, n = 124) followed by subacromial decompression (21.02%, n = 62). Conclusion: This study reports on the range of indications for which RSA is being used in the UK. It demonstrated that, based on the largest analysis of RSA across a range of indications, the revision rates and secondary surgery rates are broadly similar except for trauma sequalae.

Identifiers

PMID40499921
PMCPMC12158565

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.