Periprosthetic Humeral Fractures During Shoulder Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, there is little information available on the treatment and outcome of intraoperative periprosthetic humeral fractures that occur during shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to report on the incidence, treatment, and outcome of, as well as the risk factors for, intraoperative periprosthetic humeral fractures. METHODS: Between 1980 and 2002, forty-five intraoperative periprosthetic humeral fractures occurred during shoulder arthroplasty at our institution. Twenty-eight fractures occurred during primary total shoulder arthroplasty, three occurred during primary hemiarthroplasty, and fourteen occurred during revision arthroplasty. Nineteen fractures involved the greater tuberosity, sixteen involved the humeral shaft, six involved the metaphysis, three involved the greater tuberosity and the humeral shaft, and one involved both the greater and lesser tuberosities. All patients were followed for a minimum of two years. At the time of the latest follow-up, outcomes were assessed, radiographs were examined, and relative risks were calculated. RESULTS: Over the twenty-two-year study period, the rate of intraoperative humeral fractures at our institution was 1.5%. All fractures healed at a mean of seventeen weeks. In the primary arthroplasty group (thirty-one patients), range of motion and pain scores improved significantly (p < 0.05) at the time of follow-up. In the revision arthroplasty group (fourteen patients), range of motion remained unchanged whereas pain scores improved significantly (p < 0.005). Transient nerve injuries occurred in six patients. Four fractures displaced postoperatively and were then treated nonoperatively; all four healed. Significant relative risks for intraoperative fracture were female sex, revision surgery, and press-fit implants (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The data from the present study suggest that although intraoperative humeral fractures are associated with a high rate of healing, there was a substantial rate of associated complications, including transient nerve injuries and fracture displacement. Significant risk factors for intraoperative fractures include female sex, revision surgery, and press-fit humeral implants.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".