Outcome, revision rate and indication for revision following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the shoulder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated patient-reported outcomes, the rate of revision and the indications for revision following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in patients with osteoarthritis. All patients with osteoarthritis who underwent primary resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR), between January 2006 and December 2010 were included. There were 772 patients (837 arthroplasties) in the study. The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index was used to evaluate patient-reported outcome 12 months (10 to 14) post-operatively. The rates of revision were calculated from the revisions reported to the DSR up to December 2011 and by checking deaths with the Danish National Register of Persons. A complete questionnaire was returned by 688 patients (82.2%). The mean WOOS was 67 (0 to 100). A total of 63 hemiarthroplasties (7.5%) required revision; the cumulative five-year rate of revision was 9.9%. Patients aged < 55 years had a statistically significant inferior WOOS score, which exceeded the minimal clinically important difference, compared with older patients (mean difference 14.2 (8.8; 95% CI 19.6; p < 0.001), but with no increased risk of revision. There was no significant difference in the mean WOOS or the risk of revision between designs of resurfacing hemiarthroplasty.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".