Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for type 1 sequelae of a fracture of the proximal humerus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: The aim of this study was to analyze the results of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients with type 1 sequelae of a fracture of the proximal humerus in association with rotator cuff deficiency or severe stiffness of the shoulder. Patients and Methods: A total of 38 patients were included: 28 women and ten men. Their mean age at the time of arthroplasty was 73 years (54 to 91). Before the RSA, 18 patients had been treated with open reduction and internal fixation following a fracture. A total of 22 patients had a rotator cuff tear and 11 had severe stiffness of the shoulder with < 0° of external rotation. The mean follow-up was 4.3 years (1.5 to 10). The Constant score and the range of movement of the shoulder were recorded preoperatively and at final follow-up. Preoperatively, radiographs in two planes were performed, as well as CT or arthro-CT scans; radiographs were also performed at final follow-up. Results: The mean Constant score improved from 25 points (5 to 47) preoperatively to 57 points (15 to 81) postoperatively. The mean forward elevation of the shoulder increased from 73° (10° to 130°) preoperatively to 117° (15° to 170°) postoperatively. Previous surgery did not influence the outcome. Patients with rotator cuff tears had lower Constant scores than patients without (p = 0.037). Those with preoperative stiffness of the shoulder had lower postoperative external rotation compared with patients without stiffness (p = 0.046). There was no radiographic evidence of loosening. Three complications occurred, leading to revision surgery in two patients. In all, 17 patients rated their result as very good (45%), another 17 as good (45%), two as satisfactory (5%), and two as unsatisfactory (5%). Discussion: RSA is an effective form of treatment for patients with type 1 sequelae of a fracture of the proximal humerus associated with rotator cuff deficiency or stiffness of the shoulder, with high rates of satisfaction. Rotator cuff tears and stiffness of the shoulder had an adverse effect on the clinical outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:318-23.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".