Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Using Lateralized Glenoid Baseplates Has Superior Patient-determined Outcome Scores at Short-term Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are a variety of baseplate options when performing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal glenoid baseplate. The hypothesis of this study was that the use of lateralized baseplates would improve patient-determined outcomes and postoperative range of motion after RTSA compared with standard baseplates without increasing the risk of complications. METHODS: Patients undergoing RTSA were stratified into a standard baseplate group (SBG) and a lateralized baseplate group (LBG). The LBG included 3 mm lateralization, 6 mm lateralization, and full-wedge augmentation (8 mm lateralization). The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) were recorded at baseline, 1 year, and 2 years. Range of motion was recorded at baseline and 1 year. Differences in complications between groups were recorded. RESULTS: The LBG included 187 patients, and the SBG included 51 patients. No difference was observed in any patient-determined outcome score at 1-year follow-up. At 2 years, there were greater Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Score (84 ± 16 versus 74 ± 19; P = 0.01), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (81 ± 15 versus 70 ± 20; P = 0.001), SST (8.0 ± 2.4 versus 6.6 ± 2.6; P = 0.007), and SANE (82 ± 17 versus 68 ± 25; P = 0.0005). The improvement in SST (5.0 ± 2.7 versus 3.3 ± 3.6; P = 0.02) and SANE (54 ± 26 versus 37 ± 30; P = 0.004) at 2 years compared with baseline was greater in the LBG compared with the SBG. No difference was observed in any range-of-motion metric between groups. Total complications were similar between groups ( P = 0.91). Scapular notching was more prevalent in the SBG (7.8% versus 1.6%; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The LBG had better patient-determined outcome scores compared with the SBG at 2-year follow-up with a similar rate of overall complications but a lower rate of scapular notching. Range of motion was not improved by the use of a lateralized baseplate compared with a standard baseplate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".