Comparison of Complications in Single-incision Minimally Invasive THA and Conventional THA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether single-incision minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty (THA) is superior to conventional incision THA by comparing postoperative complication rates, Harris Hip Scores, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores. Randomized, controlled trials comparing single-incision minimally invasive THA and conventional THA were reviewed. The methodological quality of each randomized, controlled trial was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale (Centre for Evidence-based Physiotherapy, The George Institute for Global Health, New South Wales, Australia). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the quality of the evidence. Fourteen studies involving 1254 patients (1329 hips) were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 659 single-incision minimally invasive THAs (mean patient age, 63.9 years) and 670 conventional incision THAs (mean patient age, 65.0 years). A funnel plot of postoperative complication rates showed that a slight publication bias existed in the study. According to the meta-analysis, no significant statistical difference was observed in complication rates in no more than 3 postoperative years (odds ratio=1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.63; P=.79), in Harris Hip Scores in no more than 2 postoperative years (weighted mean difference=0.71; 95% confidence interval, -3.09 to 4.51; P=.71), and in WOMAC scores at 6 weeks postoperatively (weighted mean difference=-0.55; 95% confidence interval, -3.54 to 2.44; P=.72) between single-incision minimally invasive THA and conventional THA. Therefore, single-incision minimally invasive THA is not superior to conventional THA in early postoperative recovery, hip function, and complication rate.
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 | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".