Ream-and-run technique offers equivalent clinical outcomes as anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty but with a high rate of complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This review aims to explore if the Ream and Run (RnR) technique is associated with better outcomes and lower complications than the traditional Anatomical Total Shoulder Replacement (aTSA) for osteoarthritis. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted using Medline, Embase and Cochrane in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines on March 2, 2024. Only comparative studies of adult patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) comparing RnR and aTSA were included. Basic demographics, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications were extracted and analysed. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Score (NOS) tool and meta-analysis of outcomes reported by two or more studies was performed using Cochrane RevMan Web. Results: A total of 1548 patients were pooled from eight studies [RnR 738 vs aTSA 810]. Mean age in the RnR group ranged from 52.8 to 60.3 years with 93.6 % being male, compared with age range of 53-67.5 years in the aTSA group with 56 % being male. Five patients in the RnR group were Walch grade C or D, compared with three patients in the aTSA. No difference was observed between the two groups in post-operative SST score [P < 0.04], post-operative ASES score [P = 0.57] or degree of post-operative forward flexion [P < 0.41]. There was a statistically significant improvement in post-operative degree of external rotation, favouring RnR [MD -8.35, 95 % CI -14.69 to -2.01, P < 0.01] but without a significant clinical importance. The overall rate of complications in the RnR group was 15.4 % and 5.3 % in the aTSA group. The commonest reported complication in RnR group was chronic pain and stiffness (3.9 %) and soft tissue failure in the aTSA group (2.7 %). Overall rate of return-to-theatre was 7 % in RnR and 2.7 % in aTSA group. Conclusion: Both aTSA and RnR offer improvement in shoulder PROMS. However, the overall re-operation rate and complications appeared high in RnR group. The choice of technique should be tailored to the patient's pre-operative baseline, activity level and desired goals.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".