FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3199447923> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3199447923 endingPage "762" @default.
• W3199447923 startingPage "755" @default.
• W3199447923 abstract "The optimal surgical management of glenohumeral osteoarthritis in young patients remains an unsolved problem. Humeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and stemmed hemiarthroplasty using metallic heads are 2 surgical options that avoid the complications of loosening or wear of the glenoid component seen in total shoulder arthroplasty. Despite the potential benefits, improvement in survivorship has not been demonstrated from joint registry studies or other studies at mid-term follow-up. This is predominantly because of glenoid erosion and pain that occur when the metal resurfaced head articulates with the native glenoid. The use of pyrolytic carbon (pyrocarbon) as a resurfacing material has been proposed as an alternative bearing surface thought to reduce glenoid erosion owing to a marked reduction in wear rates in vitro. This study aimed to compare the survivorship of shoulder hemi-resurfacing using pyrocarbon with shoulder hemi-resurfacing and stemmed hemiarthroplasty using metallic heads.Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were analyzed for all patients aged <55 years who had undergone a primary shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis from April 16, 2004, to December 31, 2019. The outcomes of shoulder procedures using pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing were compared with procedures using metal hemi-resurfacing and metal stemmed hemiarthroplasty. The reasons for revision in each arthroplasty class were analyzed. The analyses were undertaken using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards models.We analyzed 393 primary shoulder procedures, of which 163 were pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing procedures, 163 were metal hemi-resurfacing procedures, and 67 were metal stemmed hemiarthroplasties.The cumulative percentage of revision at 6 years was 8.9% for pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing, 17.1% for metal hemi-resurfacing, and 17.5% for metal stemmed hemiarthroplasty. Pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing prostheses had a statistically lower revision rate than other hemi-resurfacing prostheses (HR, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.93; P = .032). Pain, prosthesis fracture, and infection were the key reasons for revision. No pyrocarbon hemi-resurfacing cases were revised for glenoid erosion. In male patients, pyrocarbon humeral resurfacing had a lower cumulative percentage of revision compared with metal stemmed hemiarthroplasty (HR, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.93; P = .037).Pyrocarbon humeral resurfacing arthroplasty had statistically lower revision rates at mid-term follow-up in patients aged <55 years compared with other hemi-resurfacing procedures." @default.
• W3199447923 created "2021-09-27" @default.
• W3199447923 creator A5006627471 @default.
• W3199447923 creator A5007313930 @default.
• W3199447923 creator A5025343291 @default.
• W3199447923 creator A5046071173 @default.
• W3199447923 creator A5059027662 @default.
• W3199447923 creator A5066581255 @default.
• W3199447923 creator A5085767146 @default.
• W3199447923 date "2022-04-01" @default.
• W3199447923 modified "2023-10-03" @default.
• W3199447923 title "Mid-term outcomes of pyrolytic carbon humeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty compared with metal humeral resurfacing and metal stemmed hemiarthroplasty for osteoarthritis in young patients: analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry" @default.
• W3199447923 cites W1894716606 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W1986169097 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2013597007 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2017186846 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2037816219 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2068868019 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2103702728 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2108084826 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2148212496 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2583228333 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2743702328 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2765526599 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2791931085 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2802826011 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2889859008 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W2906573319 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W3130680695 @default.
• W3199447923 cites W4254815839 @default.
• W3199447923 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2021.08.017" @default.
• W3199447923 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34555523" @default.
• W3199447923 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W3199447923 type Work @default.
• W3199447923 sameAs 3199447923 @default.
• W3199447923 citedByCount "11" @default.
• W3199447923 countsByYear W31994479232022 @default.
• W3199447923 countsByYear W31994479232023 @default.
• W3199447923 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3199447923 hasAuthorship W3199447923A5006627471 @default.
• W3199447923 hasAuthorship W3199447923A5007313930 @default.
• W3199447923 hasAuthorship W3199447923A5025343291 @default.
• W3199447923 hasAuthorship W3199447923A5046071173 @default.
• W3199447923 hasAuthorship W3199447923A5059027662 @default.
• W3199447923 hasAuthorship W3199447923A5066581255 @default.
• W3199447923 hasAuthorship W3199447923A5085767146 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConcept C172400760 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConcept C2776164576 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConcept C2777417762 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConcept C2778336525 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConcept C2781467495 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConceptScore W3199447923C121608353 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConceptScore W3199447923C126322002 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConceptScore W3199447923C141071460 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConceptScore W3199447923C142724271 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConceptScore W3199447923C172400760 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConceptScore W3199447923C204787440 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConceptScore W3199447923C2776164576 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConceptScore W3199447923C2777417762 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConceptScore W3199447923C2778336525 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConceptScore W3199447923C2781467495 @default.
• W3199447923 hasConceptScore W3199447923C71924100 @default.
• W3199447923 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W3199447923 hasLocation W31994479231 @default.
• W3199447923 hasLocation W31994479232 @default.
• W3199447923 hasOpenAccess W3199447923 @default.
• W3199447923 hasPrimaryLocation W31994479231 @default.
• W3199447923 hasRelatedWork W2004670065 @default.
• W3199447923 hasRelatedWork W2019964269 @default.
• W3199447923 hasRelatedWork W2022015225 @default.
• W3199447923 hasRelatedWork W2128425748 @default.
• W3199447923 hasRelatedWork W2140407792 @default.
• W3199447923 hasRelatedWork W2613064683 @default.
• W3199447923 hasRelatedWork W2990691930 @default.
• W3199447923 hasRelatedWork W4386388063 @default.
• W3199447923 hasRelatedWork W2071039006 @default.
• W3199447923 hasRelatedWork W2182470705 @default.
• W3199447923 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W3199447923 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3199447923 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3199447923 magId "3199447923" @default.
• W3199447923 workType "article" @default.