In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.
--------
Question: Context: Reduction-oxidation (redox) signaling, the translation of an oxidative intracellular environment into a cellular response, is mediated by the reversible oxidation of specific cysteine thiols. The latter can result in disulfide formation between protein hetero- or homodimers that alter protein function until the local cellular redox environment has returned to the basal state. We have previously shown that this mechanism promotes the nuclear localization and activity of the Forkhead Box O4 (FOXO4) transcription factor.', 'In this study, we sought to investigate whether redox signaling differentially controls the human FOXO3 and FOXO4 paralogs.', 'We present evidence that FOXO3 and FOXO4 have acquired paralog-specific cysteines throughout vertebrate evolution. Using a proteome-wide screen, we identified previously unknown redox-dependent FOXO3 interaction partners. The nuclear import receptors Importin-7 (IPO7) and Importin-8 (IPO8) form a disulfide-dependent heterodimer with FOXO3, which is required for its reactive oxygen species-induced nuclear translocation. FOXO4 does not interact with IPO7 or IPO8.\Question: Does evolutionary acquisition of cysteines determine FOXO paralog-specific redox signaling?

Answer: IPO7 and IPO8 control the nuclear import of FOXO3, but not FOXO4, in a redox-sensitive and disulfide-dependent manner. Our findings suggest that evolutionary acquisition of cysteines has contributed to regulatory divergence of FOXO paralogs, and that phylogenetic analysis can aid in the identification of cysteines involved in redox signaling.


Question: Context: Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) results in superior clinical outcomes to hemiarthroplasty (HA); however, TSA is a more technical and invasive procedure. This study retrospectively compares perioperative complications after HA and TSA using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.', 'The NSQIP user file was queried for HA and TSA cases from the years 2005 through 2010. Major complications were defined as life-threatening or debilitating. All complications occurred within 30 days of the initial procedure. We performed multivariate analysis to compare complication rates between the two procedures, controlling for patient comorbidities.', 'The database returned 1,718 patients (HA in 30.4% [n = 523] and TSA in 69.6% [n = 1,195]). The major complication rates in the HA group (5.2%, n = 29) and TSA group (5.1%, n = 61) were similar (P = .706). Rates of blood transfusions for postoperative bleeding in patients undergoing HA (2.3%, n = 12) and TSA (2.9%, n = 35) were indistinguishable (P = .458). Venous thromboembolism was a rare complication, occurring in 0.4% of patients in each group (2 HA patients and 5 TSA patients, P > .999). On multivariate analysis, the operative procedure was not associated with major complications (P = .349); however, emergency case, pulmonary comorbidity, anemia with a hematocrit level lower than 36%, and wound class of III or IV increased the risk of a major complication (P < .05 for all).\Question: Are perioperative complications after hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty equivalent?

Answer: Multivariate analysis of patients undergoing TSA or HA in the NSQIP database suggests that patient factors-not the procedure being performed-are significant predictors of major complications. Controlling for patient comorbidities, we found no increased risk of perioperative major complications in patients undergoing TSA compared with HA.


Question: Context: To compare the efficacy and safety of prophylactic modalities for heterotopic ossification prevention after elbow and acetabular surgeries.', 'The retrospective chart review was conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital and comprised record of patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation for elbow and acetabular fractures between 2010 and 2013. Data was classified into three groups: Group A patients had received single dose of radiotherapy; Group B patients had received indomethacin, and Group C patients had not received any prophylaxis. Outcome variables included time-to-fracture healing, heterotopic ossification, non-union and wound infection.', 'Of the 104patients 70(67.3%) had elbow fractures and 34(32.7%) had acetabular fractures. Out of the 70patients with elbow fractures, 28(27%) were in Group A, 24(23%) in Group B, and 18(17%) in Group C. In Group A, 4(22%) patients had wound infection compared to 1(5.5%) patient in Group C (p=0.131). One (4%) patient in Group B and 1(5.5%) in Group C developed heterotopic ossification (p=0.486). Non-union occurred in 1(4%) patient in Group B and 1(5.5%) in Group C. Out of the 34 patients with acetabular fractures, 11(32.3%) were in Group A, 10(29.4%) in Group B, and 13(38.2%) in Group C. In Group A, 2(18.2%) patients developed wound infection. Only 1(7.6%) patient in Group C developed heterotopic ossification.\Question: Do prophylaxis against heterotopic ossification after elbow and acetabular fractures - Do we really need it?

Answer:
No role of radiotherapy or indomethacin was detected in the prevention of heterotopic ossification.