Functional Outcomes After Anatomic and Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Assessed using a Novel Objective Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty replicates joint anatomy, while Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (RSA) is preferred for rotator cuff deficiency or bone loss. This study compares pre- and post-operative function after TSA and RSA using outcome measures and the Kinesiological Instrument for Normal and Altered Reaching Movement (KINARM). Methods A cohort of 81 shoulders in 74 patients (mean age 71 ± 8) underwent Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (TSA) or Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (RSA). Outcomes included lateral and forward elevation; WOOS, Constant, Oxford, and SF-36 scores; and Kinarm sensorimotor tasks (visually guided reaching, object hit, arm position matching). Patients were evaluated pre-operatively and at 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months. Analyses used paired and independent t-tests, ANOVA, and Pearson correlation. Results ROM improved at 3, 6, and 12 months in TSA and at 6 and 12 months in RSA (p < 0.01), with TSA showing better ROM at 3 months (p < 0.01). Both groups showed improvement in WOOS, Oxford, and Constant scores (p < 0.01). The TSA group had higher SF-36 mental scores, while the RSA had higher physical scores beyond 3 months. TSA showed better early WOOS, Oxford, and Constant scores. Kinarm tasks improved at 1 year in both groups (p < 0.01), and RSA showed greater improvement in arm matching. Kinarm scores correlated strongly with WOOS, Constant, and Oxford. Discussion Early recovery favored TSA; by 12 months, outcomes converged. Kinarm offers an objective complement to PROMs. Conclusion TSA and RSA showed similar 1-year outcomes, with earlier recovery after TSA. Kinarm is a reliable objective tool for pre- and post-operative upper extremity assessment. Level of Evidence: Level II.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".