Surgical treatment of humeral head avascular necrosis in patients with sickle cell disease: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease is the leading etiology for atraumatic humeral head avascular necrosis worldwide. Treatment of this condition is not standardized, with only few studies evaluating clinical outcomes after surgical interventions. The aim of this study was to review the available evidence on the results of surgical intervention for humeral head avascular necrosis in the sickle cell disease population. METHODS: A systematic electronic search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Relevant studies that reported the outcomes of surgical intervention for humeral head avascular necrosis for patients with sickle cell disease were reviewed. Outcome parameters were pain, range of motion, specific shoulder outcome scores, and complications. RESULTS: Six studies, three retrospective cohorts (2 level III and 1 level IV) and three case series (level IV), were included in this review. A total of forty-three patients with sickle cell disease, comprising forty-nine shoulders, underwent different surgical procedures. Surgical procedures were core decompression, arthroscopic intervention, humeral head resurfacing, shoulder hemiarthroplasty, and total shoulder arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: Surgical intervention for humeral head avascular necrosis in patients with sickle cell disease is selected based on the osteonecrosis stage. In the precollapse stage, core decompression is regarded as the first surgical option. However, in the light of current evidence, it has not been confirmed to prevent or delay natural progression of the disease. Shoulder arthroplasty is reserved for late stages, which despite the fairly good outcomes, data for long-term implant survival and complications are not well documented.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".