Short-term survival and patient-reported outcome of total stemless shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis are similar to that of stemmed total shoulder arthroplasty: a study from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The use of stemless total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for osteoarthritis increases, but there is a paucity on its safety and efficacy and how it performs in comparison with stemmed TSA. The aim was to compare the 5-year cumulative survival rate and patient-reported outcome after stemless and stemmed TSA for osteoarthritis. Methods: We included all stemmed (n = 1197) and stemless (n = 253) TSA for osteoarthritis reported to the Danish shoulder arthroplasty registry from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. Results: Six (2.4%) stemless and 24 (2%) stemmed TSA were revised. The 5-year cumulative implant survival rates were 0.96 for stemless TSA and 0.97 for stemmed TSA. In the multivariate Cox regression model, the hazard ratio for revision was 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.5-2.6) for stemless TSA compared with stemmed TSA. The mean Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index was 82 (standard deviation = 21) for stemmed and 86 (standard deviation = 19) for stemless TSA. The stemless TSA had a statistically significant better WOOS compared with stemmed TSA, but the difference of 6.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-10.4) was not regarded as clinically relevant. There was no difference in WOOS between the Nano and the Eclipse systems. Discussion: We found a good 5-year cumulative implant survival rate of stemless TSA, which was comparable with stemmed TSA. Although the stemless TSA had a statistically significant better patient-reported outcome compared with stemmed TSA, the difference was not clinically relevant. Sparing the humeral shaft canal for later revision could be an argument for using stemless TSA instead of stemmed TSA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".