Patient reported outcome after stemmed versus stemless total shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a patient-blinded randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Stemless shoulder arthroplasty systems with uncemented metaphyseal fixation have been used in Europe for glenohumeral osteoarthritis since 2004 [1]. The stemless design has several theoretical advantages compared with the stemmed shoulder arthroplasty systems: restoring patients’ anatomy, preserving humeral bone stock, and few complications in component removal if the need for a revision arthroplasty arises. The purpose of the study is to compare the short-term, patient-reported outcome of stemless and stemmed total shoulder arthroplasty. Materials and methods A randomized clinical trial will be conducted. Eighty patients with clinical and radiological signs of primary or posttraumatic glenohumeral osteoarthritis, computerized tomography (CT) scan-verified adequate glenoid bone stock, and no total rupture of rotator cuff tendons verified by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan will randomly be allocated to a stemless or stemmed total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The primary outcome will be the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Shoulder (WOOS) score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are the WOOS score at three months and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and EQ-5D at 3 and 12 months. All complications, including glenoid and humeral component loosening, instability, rotator cuff tear, intraoperative and postoperative periprosthetic fracture, nerve injury, infection, deltoid injury, and symptomatic deep venous thrombosis, will be reported. Discussion Findings will provide patients with better information about the potential benefits and harms of stemless and stemmed total shoulder arthroplasty and will assist shoulder surgeons and patients in decision-making.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".