Primary and revision hip arthroplasty: 5-year outcomes and influence of age and comorbidity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Revision hip arthroplasty is associated with less favorable short and longterm results than primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). We compared quality of life and satisfaction 5 years after the 2 interventions, to determine the influence of patient characteristics on poorer outcomes after revision, and to analyze if their influence differed for primary and for revision arthroplasty. METHODS: This was a hospital-based prospective cohort study including patients who underwent primary (n = 435) or revision THA (n = 116). Quality of life was measured by Harris Hip Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12 questionnaire. Satisfaction was evaluated with a visual analog scale. RESULTS: Patients undergoing a revision were older, more often obese, and had more medical and orthopedic comorbidities. Five years after surgery, 349 patients with primary THA and 85 with revisions were available for followup. Unadjusted quality of life and satisfaction were significantly lower after revision (Harris Hip Score 76.7 vs 88.1; WOMAC pain 66.4 vs 73.3; WOMAC function 61.6 vs 70.0; satisfaction 7.7 vs 8.9). Adjustment for patient characteristics revealed that this difference was partly explained by the greater morbidity and older age of patients undergoing revision. The influence of age, comorbidities, and preoperative function on 5-year outcomes did not substantially differ for the 2 intervention groups. However, obesity was associated with a stronger negative effect on revision surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients and physicians should acknowledge additional risks and consequently lower results associated with revision THA. Better information and medical preparation before surgery may help to improve the success of revision surgery.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".