Hip abductor strength following total hip arthroplasty: A prospective comparison of the posterior and lateral approach in 100 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the hip abductor strength and Trendelenburg test prospectively in 100 patients undergoing total hip replacement via a lateral or posterior approach. In 49 patients, we used the lateral approach to implant the Charnley total hip replacement, and in 51 patients, the posterior approach to implant the Exeter total hip. Isometric abductor strength was measured with the kinetic communicator device and the Trendelenburg test was recorded preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Of the original 100 patients, 83 were available for study at 3 months and 73 at 12 months. Hip abductor strength and the Trendelenburg test improved postoperatively in both groups, but we found no difference in hip abductor strength recovery at 3 and 12 months between the lateral approach and the posterior approach. Similarly there was no difference in the Trendelenburg test between the two groups 3 and 12 months following hip replacement.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".