Relationship between probability of future shoulder arthroplasty and outcomes of arthroscopic debridement in patients with advanced osteoarthritis of glenohumeral joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic glenohumeral debridement for symptom control has shown promising short term results in the young active population, when arthroplasty may not be a practical option due to the recommended activity restrictions, potential for complications and/or early wear, and a need for revision. The purpose of this study was twofold: 1) to examine the impact of arthroscopic debridement with or without subacromial decompression on clinical outcomes in patients with severe glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA), and 2) to explore the differences in post-debridement outcomes between patients who eventually progressed to arthroplasty vs. those who did not. The role of an active worker's compensation claim was examined. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of patients who were not good candidates for shoulder arthroplasty and had subsequently undergone arthroscopic shoulder debridement were used for analysis. Disability was measured using the relative Constant-Murley score (CMS), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon's (ASES) assessment form, pain free range of motion (ROM), and strength. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included in the final analysis. Eighteen (32 %) patients underwent arthroplasty surgery (arthroplasty group) over a period of 11 years. The arthroplasty group was comparable with the non-arthroplasty group prior to debridement but was more disabled at post-debridement surgery follow-up, functioning at less than 50 % of normal based on ASES, relative CMS, and active painfree ROM. In the multivariable analysis, the post-debridement relative CMS was affected by having a compensation claim and having a future arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic debridement improved clinical outcome in 68 % of patients suffering from advanced OA of glenohumeral joint. Having less than 50 % of normal score in ASES, relative CMS and painfree ROM post- debridement within a period of two years may be an indication for future arthroplasty. Role of worker's compensation claims should not be underestimated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".