Intraoperative Efficiency in Contemporary Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Is Manual Pressure During Cement Curing Still Necessary With Interference Fit Pegged Glenoids?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: No previous data have demonstrated the effect of manual pressure during cement curing on interference-fit glenoid implant fixation in total shoulder arthroplasty. In this study, we examined cement mantle characteristics and implant seating using two different methods of securing an interference-fit glenoid implant with peripheral cemented pegs: a manual pressure technique versus a pressureless technique. METHODS: Sixteen cadaveric scapulae were harvested, and their glenoids were prepared for component insertion. Glenoids with an interference-fit central peg were cemented into the peripheral holes and fully seated. Two techniques were employed during cement curing: (1) a manual pressure technique (8 glenoids), which used a static 70 N load application to each implant for 10 minutes; and (2) a pressureless technique (8 glenoids), which used no pressure application, and the implant was left to set without intervention. Each glenoid was subsequently imaged using microcomputed tomography and analyzed for differences in cement mantle characteristics and implant seating. RESULTS: The mean area of cement penetration for the manual pressure technique was not statistically different from the pressureless group (P = .26, valid N = 288). The average implant incongruity after final seating in the manual pressure group was 0.63 mm, compared with 1.0 mm in the pressureless group. A linear mixed effects model with a Kenward-Roger correction was used to compare the two groups, and no significant difference was found (Mdiff = -0.386, 95% confidence interval: -0.978 to 0.206; P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Manual pressure of the glenoid component during cement curing yielded no difference in the cement mantle area or final implant seating incongruity compared with a pressureless technique. This knowledge could potentially benefit both the surgeon and the patient by increasing the efficiency in total shoulder arthroplasty surgery.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".