Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has increased in popularity and has provided improved but somewhat variable results. These variable outcomes may be related to many factors, including implant design, component positioning, specific indication, and patient anatomy. The original Grammont design provided a solution to the high failure rate at the time but was found to have a high rate of scapular notching and poor restoration of rotation. Modern lateralized designs are more consistent in reducing scapular notching while improving range of motion, especially in regards to external rotation. This review article summarizes the effects of modern reverse shoulder prostheses on outcomes.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2020.12.006 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!