Subscapularis Management in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Current Evidence Comparing Peel, Osteotomy, and Tenotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal approach to management of the subscapularis in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is controversial. Options include the subscapularis tenotomy, lesser tuberosity osteotomy (LTO), and peel. This review provides a summary of subscapularis anatomy and function, outcomes associated with subscapularis management options in TSA, and postoperative subscapularis deficiency. Based on the available literature, LTO appears to result in improved function and subscapularis integrity relative to tenotomy, while peel and LTO have generally led to equivalent outcomes. The highest level of evidence to date is derived from a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated that outcomes following peel and LTO were not significantly different. There is currently a paucity of high-quality evidence as most studies have consisted of small retrospective series with varying outcome measures. Furthermore, the optimal approach to establishing the diagnosis of subscapularis deficiency following TSA is unclear.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".