Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Management of Postinfectious Arthropathy With Rotator Cuff Deficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment of patients with rotator cuff deficiency and arthritis in the setting of a prior glenohumeral infection (postinfectious arthropathy) is complex, with little evidence to guide treatment. The current authors present their approach to management of these patients and clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). All primary RSAs performed for postinfectious arthropathy and rotator cuff deficiency with native glenohumeral joints were identified in a prospective shoulder arthroplasty registry. Eight patients with a minimum of 2-year follow-up were included in the analysis. Clinical outcomes, including the Constant score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Shoulder (WOOS) index, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, and range of motion measurements, were assessed preoperatively and at final follow-up. At an average follow-up of 4.4 years, no patient had a clinically detectable recurrence of infection. Significant improvements were noted in all outcome scores from preoperative evaluation to final follow-up after RSA, including Constant score (P=.003), ASES score (P<.001), WOOS index (P=.002), SANE score (P=.025), forward flexion (P<.001), abduction (P<.001), and external rotation (P=.020). Seven of 8 patients reported they were satisfied or very satisfied at final follow-up. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty can be performed in patients without significant medical comorbidities in the setting of postinfectious arthropathy and rotator cuff deficiency with a low risk of recurrence of infection. Significant clinical improvements were noted at short-term follow-up.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".