Comparison of Lesser Tuberosity Osteotomy to Subscapularis Peel in Shoulder Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the optimal technique of subscapularis tendon mobilization during shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of the present randomized double-blind study was to compare two of these techniques-lesser tuberosity osteotomy and subscapularis peel-with regard to muscle strength and functional outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty were randomized to undergo either a lesser tuberosity osteotomy or a subscapularis peel. The primary outcome was subscapularis muscle strength as measured with an electronic handheld dynamometer at twenty-four months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. A sample size calculation determined that eighty-six patients provided 90% power with a 0.79 effect size to detect a significant difference between groups. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were allocated to subscapularis osteotomy, and forty-four patients were allocated to subscapularis peel. Eighty-three percent of the study cohort returned for the twenty-four-month follow-up. The primary outcome of subscapularis muscle strength at twenty-four months revealed no significant difference (p = 0.131) between the lesser tuberosity osteotomy group (mean [and standard deviation], 4.4 ± 2.9 kg) and the subscapularis peel group (mean, 5.5 ± 2.6 kg). Comparison of secondary outcomes, including the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, demonstrated no significant differences between groups at any time point. Compared with baseline measures, mean subscapularis muscle strength, Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index score, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score all improved significantly in both groups at twenty-four months (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: No significant differences in the primary or secondary outcomes of function were identified between the lesser tuberosity osteotomy group and the subscapularis peel group. For the parameters investigated, this trial does not demonstrate any clear advantage of one subscapularis treatment technique over the other.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".