Residual Groin Pain at a Minimum of Two Years After Metal-on-Metal THA with a Twenty-eight-Millimeter Femoral Head, THA with a Large-Diameter Femoral Head, and Hip Resurfacing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Groin pain may persist in up to 4.3% of patients after total hip arthroplasty and up to 18% of patients one year after hip resurfacing. The incidence of this problem after total hip arthroplasty with a large-diameter femoral head is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed the natural history of groin pain and its clinical consequences during the first two years after three types of hip arthroplasty. Data were collected prospectively on 279 patients. Eighty-five patients had a polyethylene sandwich metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty with a 28-mm-diameter femoral head, 105 had hip resurfacing, and eighty-nine had a total hip arthroplasty with a large-diameter femoral head component with three other cup designs (forty-nine in this group had the same monoblock acetabular cup design as those who had hip resurfacing). RESULTS: At the twenty-four-month follow-up evaluation, seventy-seven patients (28%) reported at least one painful area around the hip and thirty-four patients (12.2%) had pain at more than one location. At three months, the incidence of groin discomfort was significantly increased in those who had hip resurfacing (30.5%) and in those who had total hip arthroplasty with a large-diameter femoral head (30%) compared with those who had total hip arthroplasty with a 28-mm femoral head (18.3%). This incidence decreased at two years (14.9%, 16.9%, and 12.9%, respectively). At twenty-four months postoperatively, eleven (four who had hip resurfacing, six who had total hip arthroplasty with the large-diameter head, and one who had total hip arthroplasty with the 28-mm head) of forty-one patients who had groin pain had not reported groin pain at previous follow-up evaluations. Of the forty-one patients reporting groin pain at the time of the last follow-up, twenty-three patients (56%) did not seek further evaluation or treatment, nine had revision surgery (22%), and the remaining nine patients thought the pain was substantial enough to warrant further evaluation and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: When the exact source of groin pain cannot be found after total hip arthroplasty, careful follow-up should be done as local reactions to metal-on-metal implants and component loosening may take time to become apparent clinically or on imaging studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".