Two-year results of a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial comparing a second-generation uncemented trabecular metal-backed versus cemented polyethylene glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims To report early (two-year) postoperative findings from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating disease-specific quality of life (QOL), clinical, patient-reported, and radiological outcomes in patients undergoing a total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) with a second-generation uncemented trabecular metal (TM) glenoid versus a cemented polyethylene glenoid (POLY) component. Methods Five fellowship-trained surgeons from three centres participated. Patients aged between 18 and 79 years with a primary diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis were screened for eligibility. Patients were randomized intraoperatively to either a TM or POLY glenoid component. Study intervals were: baseline, six weeks, six-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Shoulder QOL score. Radiological images were reviewed for metal debris. Mixed effects repeated measures analysis of variance for within and between group comparisons were performed. Results A total of 93 patients were randomized (46 TM; 47 POLY). No significant or clinically important differences were found with patient-reported outcomes at 24-month follow-up. Regarding the glenoid components, there were no complications or revision surgeries in either group. Grade 1 metal debris was observed in three (6.5%) patients with TM glenoids at 24 months but outcomes were not negatively impacted. Conclusion Early results from this RCT showed no differences in disease-specific QOL, radiographs, complication rates, or shoulder function between uncemented second-generation TM and cemented POLY glenoids at 24 months postoperatively. Revision surgeries and reoperations were reported in both groups, but none attributed to glenoid implant failure. At 24 months postoperatively, Grade 1 metal debris was found in 6.5% of patients with a TM glenoid but did not negatively influence patient-reported outcomes. Longer-term follow-up is needed and is underway. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):728–736.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".