Does improved resection plane coverage during shoulder arthroplasty influence proximal humeral bone stress? A comparison of circular vs. elliptical humeral heads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stress shielding remains a concern following total shoulder arthroplasty using press-fit short humeral stems. While the effect of alterations in implant geometry, positioning, and sizing on stress shielding have been investigated, the effects of coverage of the cortical boundary of the resection plane have not yet been fully explored. The purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of improved cortical coverage using elliptical vs. circular humeral heads on changes in bone stress and resorbing potential. We hypothesized that better cortical coverage would reduce stress shielding potential. METHODS: Finite element models of 8 cadaveric humeri were virtually reconstructed with a short stem implant and an optimally fitted circular or elliptical humeral head. Trabecular bone material properties were assigned based on computed tomography attenuation and cortical bone was assigned uniform properties. Loads were applied to mimic 45° and 75° of abduction, and the resulting changes in bone stress were compared to the intact state and the expected time-zero bone resorbing potential were ascertained. RESULTS: The elliptical humeral heads significantly improved cortical coverage and load transfer in the medial and lateral quadrant resulting in less alteration in cortical bone stress compared to intact and significantly less cortical bone with resorbing potential. However, this came at the cost of significant but comparatively lower increases in cortical resorbing potential in the anterior and lateral quadrants. No significant effects were detected for trabecular bone in any quadrant. DISCUSSION: The results of this work show that improvements in cortical coverage have a protective effect resulting in less bone volume with resorbing potential. However, in the case of spherical vs. elliptical heads these improvements in the medial and lateral cortex came with tradeoffs in the anterior and posterior cortex because of reduced load transfer in these regions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".