Timing of Surgery for Proximal Humeral Fracture Treated with Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty, Best Results with Surgery Within 2 Weeks
Bibliographic record
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 the 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-5 Dimension index (EQ-5D), and subjective patient satisfaction assessment. Results: < 0.01). The best result, measured with WOOS at a minimum 1-year follow-up, was found when surgery was performed 6-10 days after the reported date of fracture. WOOS% 8-14 days was 69.4% (± 24.2). A delay of more than 10 days was shown to be correlated with poorer outcomes. WOOS% 15-60 days was 55.8% (± 25.0) and continued to decrease. Conclusion: The current recommendation in Sweden to perform shoulder hemiarthroplasty within 2 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".