A Comparison of Conventional Guidewire Alignment Jigs with Imageless Computer Navigation in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Correct positioning of the initial femoral guidewire is vital in order to prepare the femoral head properly for hip resurfacing. The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the accuracy and precision of the placement of the initial femoral guidewire with use of conventional alignment jigs and to compare the results with those of imageless computer navigation. METHODS: Five commercially available jigs (two lateral pin jigs, two neck centering jigs, and one head planing jig) were obtained. Four surgeons used each jig and navigation three times to insert a guidewire in 10 degrees of relative valgus and neutral version into individual synthetic femora. A single surgeon then used each jig three times to align the initial guidewire in 10 degrees of relative valgus and neutral version in each of ten human cadaver femora. Radiographs of the synthetic and human femora were made to assess and compare guidewire inclination and version between conventional instrumentation and navigation. RESULTS: Navigation provided ranges of error in the coronal guidewire alignment of up to eight times less than the conventional jigs, but both methods provided similar ranges of error for version. In both arms of the study, there were significant differences in coronal alignment accuracy between the two neck centering jigs. Next to navigation, one lateral pin jig provided the most accurate coronal placement of the initial guidewire whereas one neck centering jig provided the most precise coronal placement of the guidewire. Navigation was similar to conventional jigs in terms of the accuracy and precision of guidewire version. CONCLUSIONS: In hip resurfacing arthroplasty, the choice of a femoral alignment device may influence the accuracy and precision of guidewire insertion, ultimately impacting femoral component placement. Imageless computer navigation can facilitate accurate and precise coronal alignment of the initial femoral guidewire, superior to that of conventional instrumentation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study may aid surgeons in the selection of alignment instruments for placement of the initial femoral guidewire during hip resurfacing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".