Does the anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty better restore stair climbing gait mechanics?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While total hip arthroplasty (THA) provides pain relief and restores mobility, gait anomalies persist even years after surgery. A muscle sparing surgical approach could result in better postoperative gait mechanics. Our purpose was to compare both the anterior muscle sparing approach and the direct lateral approach (LAT) to a matched control group by using three-dimensional motion analysis while performing stair ascent and descent tasks. Lower-limb kinematics and kinetics were recorded for 20 patients that had an anterior approach (ANT), 20 that had a LAT, and 20 age- and weight-matched control participants. Patients were assessed on average 10 months after surgery. Compared to the control group, during stair ascent, the anterior group had reduced peak hip extension, peak hip flexion moment, and peak hip power. The lateral group had reduced peak hip abduction, hip frontal plane range of motion, and peak hip internal rotation. In stair descent, the anterior group had reduced peak hip flexion, peak hip abduction moment and internal rotation, as well as peak hip power. The lateral group had reduced peak hip flexion, peak knee extension moment, and peak hip power. Therefore, gait anomalies persist after THA for both approaches, which could be due to other factors such as preoperative gait adaptations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".