Stemless reverse shoulder arthroplasty neck shaft angle influences humeral component time-zero fixation and survivorship: a cadaveric biomechanical assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Stemless humeral components are being clinically investigated for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) procedures. There is, however, a paucity of basic science literature on the surgical parameters that influence the success of these procedures. Therefore, this cadaveric biomechanical study evaluated the neck shaft angle (NSA) of implantation on the survivability and performance of stemless RSA humeral components during cyclical loading. Methods Twelve paired cadaveric humeri were implanted with stemless RSA humeral components at NSAs of 135° and 145°. Implant-bone motion at the periphery of the implant was measured with three optical machine vision USB3 cameras outfitted with c-mount premium lenses and quantified with ProAnalyst® software. A custom three-dimensional loading apparatus was used to cyclically apply three loading directions representative of physiological states at five progressively increasing loading magnitudes. Stemless 135° and 145° implants were compared based on the maximum implant-bone relative distraction detected, as well as the survivorship of the implants throughout the loading protocol. Results Primary fixation and implant biomechanical survivorship were substantially better in the 145° NSA implants. The 135° NSA implants elicited significantly higher implant-bone distractions during cyclical loading (P = 0.001), and implant survivorship was considerably lower in the 135° NSA specimens when compared to the 145° NSA specimens (135° NSA: 0%, 145° NSA: 50%) (P < 0.001). Conclusions Neck shaft angle is a modifiable parameter that influences time-zero implant stability, as well as the early survivorship of the stemless RSA humeral components tested in this study. Neck shaft angle resections of 145º appear to promote better stability than those utilizing 135º neck shaft angles during early postoperative eccentric loads. Further studies are required to assess if other stemless reversed humeral implant designs have improved time-zero fixation at higher neck-shaft angles.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".