Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients with Down Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hip osteoarthritis is prevalent in 8% to 28% of patients with Down syndrome. Presence of disabling hip pain is increased along with prolonged life expectancy, suggesting total hip arthroplasty (THA). Seven consecutive patients (9 hips) with Down syndrome underwent primary THA. Coxarthrosis was secondary to developmental hip dysplasia in 6 patients and slipped capital epiphysis in 1 patient. In 5 patients (7 hips), a previous hip surgery was performed. Average clinical and radiological follow-up was 9.9±6.4 years (range, 2-22.5 years; median, 9.3 years). Average patient age at THA was 34.8±7.5 years (range, 25- 47 years; median, 35.4 years). In 2 patients (3 hips), a trochanteric slide was used for the surgical approach, while a lateral transgluteal approach was used in the remaining patients. One-way analysis of variance test was used to compare Harris Hip Scores (HHS) at postoperative follow-up.Harris Hip Scores improved significantly (P=.008) from 4.1±15.1 (range, 18.5-65; median, 45) to 84.8.3±7.7 (range, 70-93; median, 85.8) at 4-year follow-up. Harris Hip Scores (average, 70.9±6.2; range, 66.5-80; median, 68) remained essentially unchanged (P=.43) at 8-year follow-up. Two patients required revision THA for stem loosening at 6 and 16 years post-THA, respectively. The first patient is 7 years post-revision and ambulates without aids. The second patient is 6.1 years post-revision and ambulates with a walker. Six of the THAs required a constrained liner. No dislocations or deep infections were encountered. At last follow-up, all patients had a functional range of motion without evidence of discomfort related to their 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".