Shoulder arthrodesis in the pediatric and adolescent population: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to summarize the available evidence on the role of arthrodesis in pediatric patients and describe the various techniques used, their functional outcomes, and complications. AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were searched for eligible articles published until December 20 th , 2022. Study screening, selection, and data extraction were performed in duplicate and independently. Qualitative synthesis was used to describe the study design, setting, aims, inclusion and exclusion criteria, patients’ demographics, as well as relevant details on the surgical intervention and recovery. This review included nine studies, with one cross-sectional and eight case-series studies. The total number of included patients was 252, with a mean [standard deviation (SD)] age of 16.67 (10.3) years. The fixation method used in shoulder arthrodesis was primarily screws in 157 patients (62.3%), followed by Steinmann Pin in 61 patients (24%) and plate fixation in 35 patients (14%). The mean (SD) duration of follow-up was 6.8 (4) years, with a reported mean (SD) pooled success rate of 87.6% (9.17%), with most studies reporting an improved functional outcome. Non-union was the most reported complication in 31 (12.3%) patients. Arthrodesis is still a rather uncommon treatment used in rare situations to enhance shoulder function in pediatric and teenage patients, as alternative reconstructive techniques would likely be ineffective. Although the reported evidence on the efficacy and safety of shoulder arthrodesis is widely heterogeneous, a positive outcome was generally reported by studies regarding functional outcomes and complications.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".