Functional outcomes post-radial head arthroplasty: a systematic review of literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study was conducted to determine the quality and content of research on the functional outcomes and complications post-metal radial head arthroplasty (RHAP). METHODS: A comprehensive search of medical databases for studies reporting on functional outcomes of patients undergoing metallic RHAP was conducted. The Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale (SEQES) was used to evaluate quality of the studies. RESULTS: We identified 21 Sackett's Level IV studies reporting on 391 radial heads. The mean duration of follow-up was 47.2 months and the mean (SD) age of patients was 48.4 years (6.9 years). The male to female ratio was found to be 1.05 : 1 and the dominant arm was involved in 54% of patients. When functional outcomes achieved post-RHAP were compared with normative scores, the comparison suggested that RHAP has good to excellent functional outcomes in short- to mid-term follow-up. The weighted mean (SD) Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 85.8 (4.1) (95% confidence interval 85.3 to 86.3). Incidences of implant removal (3.06%) and revision (2.22%) were found to be low. CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent low-quality evidence of positive functional outcomes following RHAP. The heterogeneity of type of implant, patient characteristics and outcome measures used, along with an inadequate reporting of study details, restrict any definitive conclusions being made.
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 | 0.016 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".