Factors Affecting Stability of the Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The overall objective of this study was to investigate whether a reverse shoulder arthroplasty could provide adequate stability to a shoulder even with extreme soft tissue loss. The specific objectives of this study were: to determine if just the deltoid, conjoined tendon, and triceps are sufficient soft tissues to allow a Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty (RSA) to provide shoulder stability and to determine the influence of load direction, rotation, shoulder position, and polyethylene thickness on RSA stability in this soft-tissue deficient model. Methods: This study utilized six cadaveric shoulders that had all soft tissue removed, with the exception of the deltoid, conjoint tendon, and long head of triceps. A reverse shoulder arthroplasty was then performed (Delta III, DePuy Inc., Warsaw, IN) and an increasing dislocation force was applied perpendicular to the humeral socket centerline until dislocation occurred, or a maximum load of 100 N was reached. This was repeated to measure the effect of four factors: load direction, arm position, polyethylene thickness, and arm rotation on force to dislocation. Results: For load direction, there was an increase in force to dislocate an inferior load direction (p=0.01). There was a lower not dislocated percentage and lower survival for a posterior load direction (p=0.02). For arm position, there was a decrease in force for dislocation and lower survival for both abduction and extension arm positions. There was a higher not dislocated percentage for a flexion arm position (p=0.01). For arm rotation, there was a lower not dislocated percentage and lower survival for an external rotation arm position (p=0.03). There was no statistically significant influence of polyethylene thickness (p=0.26). Conclusion: The deltoid, conjoined tendon, and triceps are sufficient to stabilize an RSA. Load direction, arm position, and arm rotation were all shown to significantly affect stability. Finally, polyethylene thickness may not affect overall RSA stability in this soft-tissue deficient model. Level of Evidence: Basic science study, Biomechanical study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".