Surgical Approach, Abductor Function, and Total Hip Arthroplasty Dislocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dislocation is a leading early complication of total hip arthroplasty. The effect of surgical approach on instability and abductor function is a controversial topic. A comprehensive literature review was done to evaluate the correlation of surgical approach and primary total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Two hundred sixty clinical studies were identified between 1970 and 2001. Four prospective studies were identified but individually they contained insufficient power or control groups to reach statistical significance regarding surgical approach and dislocation. Fourteen studies involving 13,203 primary total hip arthroplasties met the inclusion criteria based on variables previously shown to affect stability. These studies were evaluated with respect to surgical approach and dislocation. The combined dislocation rate for these studies was 1.27% for the transtrochanteric approach, 3.23% for the posterior approach (3.95% without posterior repair and 2.03% with posterior repair), 2.18% for the anterolateral approach, and 0.55% for the direct lateral approach. Eight studies involving 2455 primary total hip arthroplasties evaluated postoperative limp. The incidence of postoperative limp was 4% to 20% for patients who had the lateral approach and 0% to 16% for patients who had the posterior approach. The quality of the literature regarding surgical approach, dislocation rates, and abductor function is limited. Larger controlled prospective studies are needed to investigate the potential benefits of the posterior approach in lieu of a dislocation rate six times higher than the direct lateral approach for primary total hip arthroplasty.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".