Multiple acromion lengths and glenoid implant inclinations can result in the same critical shoulder angle with large differences in articular joint loading–a musculoskeletal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Glenoid implant loosening is the most common complication of anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty. It is caused by high glenohumeral shear forces and by an eccentric loading of the glenoid implant provoking its "rocking". The critical shoulder angle (CSA) varies with the glenoid inclination and the acromion length. A higher CSA has been correlated with earlier radiological signs of glenoid loosening. However, the reliability of the CSA in predicting the risk factors of glenoid loosening has yet to be determined since the same CSA can result from multiple scapular anatomies. Methods: of the shoulder with anatomical implants allowing glenohumeral translations was used. The acromion length and the glenoid implant inclination were varied to create multiple CSA configurations. Muscle forces, the force, and the moment applied to the glenoid implant were simulated during a shoulder abduction to compare the risks of glenoid loosening. Results: Increasing the CSA with an upward-tilted glenoid and a longer acromion led to more eccentric forces applied to the glenoid. The moment and shear applied to the glenoid implant increased with a higher CSA and were minimal for the smaller CSAs. Depending on the combination of inclination and acromion length, the shear and the moment were highly variable for the same CSA. Conclusion: Measuring the CSA as a global indicator may be insufficient to accurately predict the risk of glenoid loosening. It suggests that the acromion length could be considered during surgical planning to determine the adequate glenoid implant inclination.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".