MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7070820927

Proximal humeral fractures : outcome of treatment with shoulder arthroplasty

2023· article· en· W7070820927 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueOpen Archive (Karolinska Institutet) · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueMine drainage and remediation techniques
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésArthroplastyShoulder FractureProximal humerusHumerusComorbidityRelative riskOrthopedic surgeryShoulder joint
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Proximal humerus fractures are a common injury, particularly in the elderly and especially in women. The preferred treatment approach is usually nonsurgical, with surgery reserved for cases that meet specific fracture patterns and patient-specific criteria. The aim of this thesis was to study the use of arthroplasty as a treatment option for proximal humeral fractures.
\n
\n
\n
\nStudy I: Revision after shoulder replacement for acute fracture of the proximal humerus. A Nordic registry-based study of 6,756 cases. The aim was to investigate revision rates and reasons for revision after shoulder arthroplasty for acute fractures of the proximal humerus. Common data sets were collected from the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish registries which conducted shoulder arthroplasty after acute fractures. The number and proportion of reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (rTSA) performed during the study period increased steadily. Of the 222 arthroplasties revised between 2004 and 2013, infection was the most common reason. The relative risk of revision due to infection was higher for rTSA than for shoulder hemiarthroplasties (SHA). In addition, patients younger than 75 years had a higher relative risk of revision, and survival with SHA was worse in younger patients than in older patients. Conclusion: Both SHA and rTSA have similar survival rates. However, the factors leading to a revision decision are not fully known, and reported survival rates may not reflect patients' functional outcomes. Patients with acute fractures often have comorbidities and are less amenable to revision surgery. Inclusion of patient reports in the data set would provide important information. The risk of infection was higher after rTSA than after SHA, and differences in revision rates between systematic reviews and national registries may be due to inclusion criteria. Comparisons between SHA and rTSA should be made with caution.
\n
\n
\n
\nStudy II: Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) - a validation for use in proximal humerus fractures treated with arthroplasty. The objective was to validate the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) as a patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) for use in proximal humeral fractures treated with arthroplasty. Patients from Swedish Shoulder Arthroplasty registry (SSAR) who underwent surgery after PHF with SHA and had surgery Karolinska hospital and Danderyd hospital were selected. Those who accepted performed shoulder-specific PROM and WOOS retest, and the necessary clinical examinations, Constant score (CS) and American shoulder and elbow Society (ASES), were performed at Danderyd Hospital. The validity of the WOOS has excellent correlation with all shoulder-specific scores and good correlation with EQ -5D. Test-retest reliability of WOOS overall and in subgroups also shows excellent correlation. Cronbach's alpha supports the construct of WOOS, and no floor or ceiling effects were observed. Conclusion: WOOS is a reliable tool for assessing patients with SHA after PHF. Our study supports the continued use of WOOS in SSAR and further studies with WOOS and arthroplasty after proximal humerus fractures.
\n
\n
\n
\nStudy III: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty provides better shoulder function than hemiarthroplasty for displaced 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures in patients aged 70 years or older: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. The aim was to compare the outcomes of 3–4-part fractures of the proximal humerus treated with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) and hemiarthroplasty (SHA) in patients aged ≥70 years in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. An RCT multicenter study was conducted, and eight hospitals recruited patients for the study. The rTSA group had a higher mean Constant score (58.7) compared with SHA (47.7), with a mean difference of 11.1 points (95% CI, 3.0–18.9). Patients who underwent rTSA reported greater satisfaction with their shoulders on average and had better range of motion. However, no differences were noted in WOOS, EQ -5D or pain at VAS. We noted three adverse events in the rTSA group and four in the SHA group. Conclusion: Our study showed that the rTSA group had better shoulder function as measured by the Constant score compared with SHA. This could explain why rTSA patients were more satisfied with their shoulder function. The main difference could be explained by a better range of motion in the rTSA group.
\n
\n
\n
\nStudy IV: Timing of surgery for proximal humeral fracture treated with shoulder hemiarthroplasty, best results with surgery within 2 weeks. The aim was to evaluate the validity of the national recommendation "surgery with arthroplasty within 2 weeks" by investigating the timing to surgery in patients operated on with shoulder arthroplasty after proximal humerus fractures. Data was collected from SSAR. In addition, the date of fracture was collected from the hospitals that could provide that information. Preoperative delay had a negative impact on WOOS, EQ -5D, and patient satisfaction scores. The best outcomes, as measured by the WOOS score at a follow-up of at least 1 year, were observed when surgery was performed within 6-10 days of the reported fracture date. A delay of more than 10 days was associated with a worse outcome. Conclusion: The current recommendation in Sweden to perform shoulder hemiarthroplasty within two weeks after proximal humerus fracture is considered valid.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,635
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,908

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,312
Écart entre enseignants0,286 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOpen Archive (Karolinska Institutet)Même sujetMine drainage and remediation techniquesTravaux en français237 207