Clinical outcomes and complications following primary total elbow arthroplasty using the Latitude prosthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Latitude total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is an implant with limited published data on its performance and outcomes. The aim of this study was to report the short-term outcomes of the Latitude TEA as well as to describe the radiographic outcomes and complications. METHODS: The Latitude was implanted in 20 patients (23 elbows) in a linked configuration. Patients were recalled to clinic for the assessment of their range-of-motion and compared to preoperative values. Administration of functional outcome measures was also performed. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 4.7 years (range, 1 to 7.5 years) with four elbows requiring revision. The flexion-extension arc improved from 86.6 to 101.3 (range, 76 to 126) postoperatively (p = 0.04). The average Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 28.1 (range, 5.8 to 50.4) and the average Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 89.6 (range, 76 to 100), with 83% of elbows scoring in the good or excellent range. Radiolucencies were detected in 60% of patients and 31% of these lucencies progressed in size at the time of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The Latitude prosthesis provides patients with favorable clinical outcomes with improvements in their range-of-motion and a complication rate comparable to other elbow arthroplasty 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".