Clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients 60 years old and younger; medium-term results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has been well-described as a surgical solution to manage rotator cuff tear arthropathy in elderly, low demand paitents. As experience has increased along with improvements in technique and implant design, RTSA has become increasingly used to manage more varied pathologic conditions of the shoulder in younger, more active patients. This study evaluates outcomes in a consecutive series of patients aged 60 years old and younger after undergoing RTSA. Methods: There were 94 shoulders in 89 patients enrolled. Mean age of the cohort was 54.8 (range 18-60 years). Surgical indications included rotator cuff tear arthropathy, irreparable rotator cuff tear without arthritis, glenohumeral arthritis with erosive glenoid deformity, inflammatory arthropathy, proximal humerus fracture nonunion/malunion and failed prior shoulder arthroplasty. Sixty-one shoulders (70%) had undergone at least one prior surgery. Of these, 6 shoulders (6% of total cohort) had a prior failed arthroplasty. Clinical outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index; visual analog scale pain), radiographic outcomes and complications were analyzed and assessed for correlation with patient demographic factors. Results: < .001). Prior operation correlated with worse postoperative ASES and WOOS scores. Higher demand occupation correlated with less improvement in pain scores. The overall complication rate was 12%. Seven shoulders (7%) underwent an additional procedure. There was a 2% incidence of dislocation and a 4% incidence of acromial stress fracture. There was a 36% incidence of notching. Conclusion: With medium-term follow-up, RTSA is a reliable and predictable operation to manage various pathologic conditions in patients aged 60 years or less. Patients predictably experience significant improvements in pain and range of motion while assuming a modest complication risk. Long-term study is needed to understand potential for late complications or implant failure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".