Scapular morphology variation affects reverse total shoulder arthroplasty biomechanics. A predictive simulation study using statistical and musculoskeletal shoulder models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) accounts for over half of shoulder replacement surgeries. At present, the optimal position of RTSA components is unknown. Previous biomechanical studies have investigated the effect of construct placement to quantify mobility, stability and functionality postoperatively. While studies have provided valuable information on construct design and surgical placement, they have not systematically evaluated the importance of scapular morphology on biomechanical outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of scapular morphology variation on RTSA biomechanics using statistical models, musculoskeletal modeling and predictive simulation. The scapular geometry of a musculoskeletal model was altered across six modes of variation at four levels (±1 and ±3 SD) from a clinically derived statistical shape model. For each model, a standardized virtual surgery was performed to place RTSA components in the same relative position on each model then implemented in 50 predictive simulations of upward and lateral reaching tasks. Results showed morphology affected functional changes in the deltoid moment arms and recruitment for the two tasks. Variation of the anatomy that reduced the efficiency of the deltoids showed increased levels of muscle force production, joint load magnitude and shear. These findings suggest that scapular morphology plays an important role in postoperative biomechanical function of the shoulder with an implanted RTSA. Furthermore a "one-size-fits-all" approach for construct surgical placement may lead to suboptimal patient outcomes across a clinical population. Patient glenoid as well as scapular anatomy may need to be carefully considered when planning RTSA to optimize postoperative success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".