Ten-year follow-up of stemmed hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims There is no consensus on the treatment of proximal humeral fractures. Hemiarthroplasty has been widely used in patients when non-surgical treatment is not possible. There is, despite extensive use, limited information about the long-term outcome. Our primary aim was to report ten-year patient-reported outcome after hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. The secondary aims were to report the cumulative revision rate and risk factors for an inferior patient-reported outcome. Methods We obtained data on 1,371 hemiarthroplasties for acute proximal humeral fractures from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry between 2006 and 2010. Of these, 549 patients (40%) were alive and available for follow-up. The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) questionnaire was sent to all patients at nine to 14 years after primary surgery. Revision rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Risk factors for an inferior WOOS score were analyzed using the linear regression model. Results Mean age at surgery was 67 years (24 to 90) and 445 (81%) patients were female. A complete questionnaire was returned by 364 (66%) patients at a mean follow-up of 10.6 years (8.8 to 13.8). Mean WOOS score was 64 (4.3 to 100.0). There was no correlation between WOOS scores and age, sex, arthroplasty brand, or year of surgery. The 14-year cumulative revision rate was 5.7% (confidence interval 4.1 to 7.2). Patients aged younger than 55 years and patients aged between 55 to 74 years had 5.6-times (2.0 to 9.3) and 4.3-times (1.9 to 16.7) higher risk of revision than patients aged older than 75 years, respectively. Conclusion This is the largest long-term follow-up study of acute proximal humeral fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty. We found a low revision rate and an acceptable ten-year patient-reported outcome. The patient-reported outcome should be interpreted with caution as we have no information about the patients who died or did not return a complete WOOS score. The long-term outcome and revision rate suggest that hemiarthroplasty offers a valid alternative when non-surgical treatment is not possible. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1063–1069.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".