Maximizing Muscle Function in Cuff-Deficient Shoulders: A Rehabilitation Proposal for Reverse Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this review is to describe the role of altered joint biomechanics in reverse shoulder arthroplasty and to propose a rehabilitation protocol for a cuff-deficient glenohumeral joint based on the current evidence. Methods and Materials: The proposed rehabilitation incorporates the principles of pertinent muscle loading while considering risk factors and surgical complications. Results In light of altered function of shoulder muscles in reverse arthroplasty, scapular plane abduction should be more often utilized as it better activates deltoid, teres minor, upper trapezius, and serratus anterior. Given the absence of supraspinatus and infraspinatus and reduction of external rotation moment arm of the deltoid in reverse arthroplasty, significant recovery of external rotation may not occur, although an intact teres minor may assist external rotation in the elevated position. Conclusion Improving the efficiency of deltoid function before and after reverse shoulder arthroplasty is a key factor in the rehabilitation of the cuff deficient shoulders. Performing exercises in scapular plane and higher abduction angles activates deltoid and other important muscles more efficiently and optimizes surgical outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".