Computerized Virtual Surgery Demonstrates Where Acetabular Rim Osteophytes Most Reduce Range of Motion following Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acetabular osteophytes are common findings during total hip arthroplasty (THA). PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine the extent to which osteophytes may limit range of motion (ROM) and in which locations impingement is likely to occur if osteophytes are not removed during surgery. METHODS: Computer-aided design was used to compare ROM of a modern hip implant in four cadaver models with and without 10-mm acetabular rim osteophytes added. A clock face, with 12 o'clock at the superior pole of the right acetabulum, was used to map impingement. RESULTS: The osteophyte model limited ROM in flexion (101° v. 113°, p = 0.03), 90° of flexion with internal rotation (16.7° v. 31.6°, p = 0.01), and external rotation (30.4° v. 49.5°, p = 0.01). Impingement occurred between 7 and 8 o'clock in external rotation and 1 and 2 o'clock in the other two motions. CONCLUSIONS: Osteophytes in these positions have the greatest impact on ROM and should be removed during THA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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".