Timing of surgery for proximal humeral fracture treated with shoulder hemiarthroplasty, best results with surgery within 2 weeks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Preoperative delay may affect the outcome of proximal humerus fractures treated with shoulder hemiarthroplasty. There is currently no consensus for the recommended preoperative time interval. The aim was to examine how the time to surgery with shoulder hemiarthroplasty after a proximal humerus fracture affected patient-reported outcome. Methods 380 patients with proximal humerus fractures treated with shoulder hemiarthroplasty recorded from the Swedish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry were included. Three self-reporting outcome instruments were used at follow-up after 1-5 years: a shoulder specific score, the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index (WOOS), the EuroQol health status component (EQ-5D-index) and subjective patient satisfaction assessment. Results Preoperative delay had a negative impact on the WOOS, EQ-5D and patient satisfaction scores (p < 0.01). The best result, measured with WOOS at minimum 1-year follow-up, was found when surgery was performed 6-10 days after the reported date of fracture. A delay of more than 10 days was shown be correlated with poorer outcomes. Conclusions The current recommendation in Sweden to perform shoulder hemiarthroplasty within two weeks after sustaining a proximal humerus fracture is considered valid.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".