Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Acute Proximal Humerus Fractures: Is Delay Associated With an Increased Rate of Reoperation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare reoperation rates of acute versus delayed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) following a period of nonoperative treatment for proximal humerus fractures (PHFs). We also aimed to identify an optimal time interval from PHF to RTSA before the risk of reoperation significantly increased. METHODS: . DESIGN: Database review. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Adults aged 50 years and older who sustained a PHF (OTA/AO 11A-C) between 2004 and 2019 were included. Exclusion criteria included polytrauma, open fractures, non-Ontario residents, invalid health insurance, and any operative treatment before RTSA. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: The primary outcome measure was reoperation within 2 years following RTSA. A risk-adjusted, restricted cubic spline was used to model the probability of reoperation according to the time elapsed between PHF and RTSA to identify a time point at which the risk of reoperation significantly increased. A multivariate logistics regression was used to identify predictors. RESULTS: In total, 891 patients (685 acute, 206 delayed) underwent RTSA for PHF. The acute cohort had a significantly lower reoperation rate (3.9%) compared with the delayed cohort (8.3%) (P = 0.02). The odds of reoperation increased with a delay to RTSA greater than 28 days and continued to rise until 100 days after fracture. Patients who underwent RTSA 28 days after PHF were found to have a significantly higher odds of reoperation by 2 years (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing RTSA for acute PHFs, a delay to surgery greater than 28 days is associated with a greater odds of reoperation and may be useful when counseling patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".