MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415490758 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.10.010

REVERSE TOTAL SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY FOR ACUTE PROXIMAL HUMERUS FRACTURES: IS DELAY ASSOCIATED WITH AN INCREASED RATE OF REOPERATION?

2025· article· en· W4415490758 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jimmy Tat, D. Thiruchelvam, Diane Nam, Marie Paterson, Ujash Sheth

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArthroplastyProximal humerusInternal fixationShoulder FractureCohortComplicationReduction (mathematics)Humerus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a steady increase in the use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for the treatment of proximal humerus fracture (PHFs). There is now emerging evidence that performing a RTSA acutely may result in superior clinical outcomes when compared to secondary RTSA as a salvage procedure following failed management of a PHF. Studies have found acute RTSA to be associated with higher tuberosity healing rates, greater range of motion, and superior functional outcomes compared to treatment with secondary RTSA after initial management with internal fixation. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding optimal timing to perform an acute RTSA for PHF before the risk of complications and reoperation rise, with the current literature varying between 2 and 6 weeks post-fracture. A population-based cohort study was performed utilizing administrative healthcare data from Ontario, Canada. All adults aged 50 years and older in Ontario who sustained a PHF between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2019 were identified. To ensure that none of the RTSAs in the delayed treatment were salvage procedures for other failed operative treatments, patients who underwent prior operative treatment before RTSA, including open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and hemiarthroplasty, were excluded. Other exclusion criteria included polytrauma, open fractures, non-Ontario residents, and invalid or absence of provincial health insurance. Our primary objective was to identify the time interval between PHF and RTSA after which the risk of complication (and subsequent reoperation) significantly increased. A risk-adjusted, restricted cubic spline was used to model the probability of reoperation according to the time elapsed between PHF and RTSA. A secondary outcome measure was reoperation within two years following RTSA. A multivariate logistics regression was used to predict reoperation risk. A total of 914 patients (acute RTSA 687 patients, delayed RTSA 227 patients) underwent RTSA for PHF during the study period. The mean age was 72.5 y (range, 50–98 y) and the majority of patients were female (82.2%). The mean time from fracture to surgery was 45.7 days (range, 0–357 d). The acute RTSA cohort had significantly lower reoperation rates at 4.2% compared to the delayed RTSA cohort at 7.9% (p = 0.02). The odds of reoperation increased with a delay to RTSA greater than 28 days, at which point, the odds of reoperation continued to rise until it plateaued at 100 days post-fracture (Figure 1). In the multivariate analysis patients who underwent RTSA 28 days or more after PHF were found to have a higher odds of reoperation by 2 years (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.47; P = 0.05) (Table 1). Among patients undergoing RTSA for acute PHFs, surgical delays of greater than 28 days were associated with a greater odds of reoperation by two years. In order to realize the reported benefits associated with acute RTSA in the fracture setting, a threshold of 28 days may be useful when counselling patients regarding reoperation risk and evaluating the risk-benefit profile during the shared decision-making process regarding treatment of acute PHFs. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207