↓ Skip to main content

Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Overview of attention for article published in International Orthopaedics, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty
Published in
International Orthopaedics, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00264-015-2984-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandre Lädermann, Patrick J. Denard, Pascal Boileau, Alain Farron, Pierric Deransart, Alexandre Terrier, Julien Ston, Gilles Walch

Abstract

The impacts of humeral offset and stem design after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have not been well-studied, particularly with regard to newer stems which have a lower humeral inclination. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of different humeral stem designs on range of motion and humeral position following RSA. Using a three-dimensional computer model of RSA, a traditional inlay Grammont stem was compared to a short curved onlay stem with different inclinations (155°, 145°, 135°) and offset (lateralised vs medialised). Humeral offset, the acromiohumeral distance (AHD), and range of motion were evaluated for each configuration. Altering stem design led to a nearly 7-mm change in humeral offset and 4 mm in the AHD. Different inclinations of the onlay stems had little influence on humeral offset and larger influence on decreasing the AHD. There was a 10° decrease in abduction and a 5° increase in adduction between an inlay Grammont design and an onlay design with the same inclination. Compared to the 155° model, the 135° model improved adduction by 28°, extension by 24° and external rotation of the elbow at the side by 15°, but led to a decrease in abduction of 9°. When the tray was placed medially, on the 145° model, a 9° loss of abduction was observed. With varus inclination prostheses (135° and 145°), elevation remains unchanged, abduction slightly decreases, but a dramatic improvement in adduction, extension and external rotation with the elbow at the side are observed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 150 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 19 13%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Postgraduate 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Master 13 9%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 39 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 48%
Engineering 12 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 57 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,966,783
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from International Orthopaedics
#83
of 1,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,938
of 273,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Orthopaedics
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,455 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.