Functional outcome after proximal humeral fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate functional outcome after hemiarthroplasty for displaced proximal humeral fractures and to review whether prosthesis type, intraoperative technique or previous ipsilateral shoulder surgery could affect the outcome. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records and radiographs of patients who had undergone hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures between 1992 and 2000. We identified 45 patients, 39 with acute fractures and 6 with fracture-related complications. One surgeon performed 17 surgeries (38%), and the rest were carried out by 11 other orthopedic surgeons. Using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Evaluation Form and the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, we evaluated patients who had been followed for at least 2 years for residual shoulder pain, range of motion, strength, stability and function. The senior authors reviewed the radiographs. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients at presentation was 70 (range 46-95) years. The mean active forward elevation was 87 degrees, abduction 63 degrees and external rotation 22 degrees; the mean internal rotation was to the L2 vertebra. Of the patients, 15% reported severe pain, and 25% were unable to sleep on the affected side. Patients with previous surgeries and those with intraoperative cuff tears were found to have more postoperative pain. CONCLUSION: We conclude that soft tissue status and operative technique play an important role in late postoperative pain and range of motion. Hemiarthroplasty after failed open reduction and internal fixation is associated with inferior results. We were unable to show a difference in long-term outcome related to the prosthesis type.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".