Cemented humeral stem<i>versus</i>press-fit humeral stem in total shoulder arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in revision and complication rates, functional outcomes, and radiological outcomes between cemented and press-fit humeral stems in primary anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Materials and Methods A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted searching for studies that included patients who underwent primary anatomical TSA for primary osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Results There was a total of 36 studies with 927 cemented humeral stems and 1555 press-fit stems. The revision rate was 5.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.9 to 7.4) at a mean of 89 months for cemented stems, and 2.4% (95% CI 1.1 to 4.7) at a mean of 40 months for press-fit stems. A priori subgroup analysis to control for follow-up periods demonstrated similar revision rates: 2.3% (95% CI 1.1 to 4.7) for cemented stems versus 1.8% (95% CI 1.4 to 2.9) for press-fit stems. Exploratory meta-regression found that longer follow-up was a moderating variable for revision (p = 0.003). Conclusion Cement fixation had similar revision rates when compared to press-fit stems at short- to midterm follow-up. Rotator cuff pathology was a prevalent complication in both groups but is likely not related to fixation type. Overall, with comparable revision rates, possible easier revision, and decreased operative time, humeral press-fit fixation may be an optimal choice for primary anatomical TSA in patients with sufficient bone stock. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1107–1114.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".