Clinically relevant results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for patients younger than 65 years compared to the older patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was originally designed for older patients with rotator cuff arthropathy and produces good results. The main objective of this retrospective study was to compare the patients younger than 65 years vs. the older patients in terms of the complications of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and the functional recovery. METHODS: From January 2014 to January 2020, 566 patients who underwent the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty were divided into two groups (group A, ≥ 65 years, n = 506; group B, < 65 years, n = 60). The patients reported the quality of life using the patient-reported Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index. The Constant score was obtained preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. The complications and reoperations were compared. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Clinically relevant improvements were found in group A and B. There was a multivariate statistically-significant but not clinically relevant difference in the change over time between group A and B. The mean 12-month Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder indexes were 58 in group B and 71 in group A. The mean Constant scores were 44 in group B vs. 43 in group A. Compared to group A, group B had a non-significant odds ratio of 1.9, which did not reach the clinically relevant Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index of group A. CONCLUSION: In patients younger than 65 years of age, RTSA seems to be a safe procedure in short term follow-up. After 1 year, we found no increased risk of complications, revision, or inferior outcomes compared to patients older than 65 years of age. Consequently, after one-year, RTSA provided clinically relevant improvements in the patients' quality of life and shoulder strength regardless of age.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".