The Presence of an Ossific Nucleus Does Not Protect Against Osteonecrosis After Treatment of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteonecrosis (ON) is a major complication after treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Several studies have explored the absence of the femoral head ossific nucleus at the time of hip reduction as a risk factor for the development of ON, but findings have been inconsistent. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore determined the incidence of ON in children who underwent reduction of a dislocated hip in the presence or absence of the ossific nucleus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the radiographs of 105 hips in 89 patients treated for DDH at the age of 18 months or younger. Radiographs were graded for the presence of the ossific nucleus at the time of hip reduction and for the presence of ON, as graded by the Bucholz and Ogden classification, for patients at a mean age of 10 years. We used log-binomial regression to estimate if the presence of the ossific nucleus was associated with a lower incidence of ON. RESULTS: We identified ON in 37 of the 105 hips (35%). The incidence of ON at 10 years was 40% in the absence of the ossific nucleus and 32% in the presence of the ossific nucleus (adjusted relative risk, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-1.81). When only radiographic changes of Grade II and greater were considered ON, the risk was still not increased (relative risk, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.56). CONCLUSION: Patients with an ossific nucleus at the time of hip reduction showed a slight tendency toward better outcomes. The ossific nucleus did not protect for ON. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study. See 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".