The John Charnley Award: The Functional Outcome of Hip Resurfacing and Large-head THA Is the Same
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Better functional outcome is believed by some to occur after hip resurfacing (HR) than conventional 28-mm total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young and active patients with hip osteoarthritis. However, the postulated superior outcome of HR over THA may simply be the result of a bias in patient selection or the use of a larger femoral head. We therefore asked whether HR would demonstrate superior functional outcome when compared with a THA with a large-diameter femoral head in a randomized, double-blind study. Gait speed and postural balance evaluations, functional tests, and clinical data were analyzed preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Gait speed was used as the primary outcome measure. Forty-eight patients were randomized in the study and a third group of 14 healthy subjects served as controls. The gait speed and postural balance evaluations, the performance at most functional tests, and clinical scores were similar in HR and large-head THA groups at each followup period. The operated patients reached most control group values at 3 months postoperatively. By these measures, HR did not provide better clinical function over large-head THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.014 |
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".