MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7070820927

Proximal humeral fractures : outcome of treatment with shoulder arthroplasty

2023· article· en· W7070820927 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Archive (Karolinska Institutet) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArthroplastyShoulder FractureProximal humerusHumerusComorbidityRelative riskOrthopedic surgeryShoulder joint
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Proximal humerus fractures are a common injury, particularly in the elderly and especially in women. The preferred treatment approach is usually nonsurgical, with surgery reserved for cases that meet specific fracture patterns and patient-specific criteria. The aim of this thesis was to study the use of arthroplasty as a treatment option for proximal humeral fractures.
\n
\n
\n
\nStudy I: Revision after shoulder replacement for acute fracture of the proximal humerus. A Nordic registry-based study of 6,756 cases. The aim was to investigate revision rates and reasons for revision after shoulder arthroplasty for acute fractures of the proximal humerus. Common data sets were collected from the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish registries which conducted shoulder arthroplasty after acute fractures. The number and proportion of reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (rTSA) performed during the study period increased steadily. Of the 222 arthroplasties revised between 2004 and 2013, infection was the most common reason. The relative risk of revision due to infection was higher for rTSA than for shoulder hemiarthroplasties (SHA). In addition, patients younger than 75 years had a higher relative risk of revision, and survival with SHA was worse in younger patients than in older patients. Conclusion: Both SHA and rTSA have similar survival rates. However, the factors leading to a revision decision are not fully known, and reported survival rates may not reflect patients' functional outcomes. Patients with acute fractures often have comorbidities and are less amenable to revision surgery. Inclusion of patient reports in the data set would provide important information. The risk of infection was higher after rTSA than after SHA, and differences in revision rates between systematic reviews and national registries may be due to inclusion criteria. Comparisons between SHA and rTSA should be made with caution.
\n
\n
\n
\nStudy II: Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) - a validation for use in proximal humerus fractures treated with arthroplasty. The objective was to validate the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) as a patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) for use in proximal humeral fractures treated with arthroplasty. Patients from Swedish Shoulder Arthroplasty registry (SSAR) who underwent surgery after PHF with SHA and had surgery Karolinska hospital and Danderyd hospital were selected. Those who accepted performed shoulder-specific PROM and WOOS retest, and the necessary clinical examinations, Constant score (CS) and American shoulder and elbow Society (ASES), were performed at Danderyd Hospital. The validity of the WOOS has excellent correlation with all shoulder-specific scores and good correlation with EQ -5D. Test-retest reliability of WOOS overall and in subgroups also shows excellent correlation. Cronbach's alpha supports the construct of WOOS, and no floor or ceiling effects were observed. Conclusion: WOOS is a reliable tool for assessing patients with SHA after PHF. Our study supports the continued use of WOOS in SSAR and further studies with WOOS and arthroplasty after proximal humerus fractures.
\n
\n
\n
\nStudy III: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty provides better shoulder function than hemiarthroplasty for displaced 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures in patients aged 70 years or older: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. The aim was to compare the outcomes of 3–4-part fractures of the proximal humerus treated with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) and hemiarthroplasty (SHA) in patients aged ≥70 years in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. An RCT multicenter study was conducted, and eight hospitals recruited patients for the study. The rTSA group had a higher mean Constant score (58.7) compared with SHA (47.7), with a mean difference of 11.1 points (95% CI, 3.0–18.9). Patients who underwent rTSA reported greater satisfaction with their shoulders on average and had better range of motion. However, no differences were noted in WOOS, EQ -5D or pain at VAS. We noted three adverse events in the rTSA group and four in the SHA group. Conclusion: Our study showed that the rTSA group had better shoulder function as measured by the Constant score compared with SHA. This could explain why rTSA patients were more satisfied with their shoulder function. The main difference could be explained by a better range of motion in the rTSA group.
\n
\n
\n
\nStudy IV: Timing of surgery for proximal humeral fracture treated with shoulder hemiarthroplasty, best results with surgery within 2 weeks. The aim was to evaluate the validity of the national recommendation "surgery with arthroplasty within 2 weeks" by investigating the timing to surgery in patients operated on with shoulder arthroplasty after proximal humerus fractures. Data was collected from SSAR. In addition, the date of fracture was collected from the hospitals that could provide that information. Preoperative delay had a negative impact on WOOS, EQ -5D, and patient satisfaction scores. The best outcomes, as measured by the WOOS score at a follow-up of at least 1 year, were observed when surgery was performed within 6-10 days of the reported fracture date. A delay of more than 10 days was associated with a worse outcome. Conclusion: The current recommendation in Sweden to perform shoulder hemiarthroplasty within two weeks after proximal humerus fracture is considered valid.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Archive (Karolinska Institutet)Same topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207