Sports Activity After Short-Stem Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No data are available about the sports activity of patients with bone-conserving short-stem hip implants. HYPOTHESIS: Patients can return to a good level of sports activity after implantation of a short-stem hip implant. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: The sports activity level of 68 patients (76 hips) after short-stem hip arthroplasty was assessed for a minimum of 2 years after implantation. In addition to the clinical examination, a detailed evaluation of the patients' sports pattern was obtained. Furthermore, the results were analyzed with regard to gender (female and male) and age (≤55 and >55 years). RESULTS: After a mean of 2.7 years, patients showed a Harris Hip Score (HHS) of 93.6, a Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score of 9.5, and a University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score of 7.6, with each individual participating on average in 3.5 different disciplines after surgery compared with 3.9 before surgery. High-impact activities decreased significantly postoperatively, whereas low-impact activities increased significantly. The duration of the sports activities remained stable, while the frequency actually increased. In contrast, men participated preoperatively in more sports than women (4.3 men vs 3.3 women). However, because of a pronounced decrease in high-impact activities by men, both genders participated in an equal number of sports postoperatively (3.5 men vs 3.5 women). Finally, 45% (n = 31) reported at least one activity that they missed. Most of them were disciplines with an intermediate- or high-impact level. CONCLUSION: Patients with a short-stem hip implant can return to a good level of activity postoperatively. Participation in sports almost reached similar levels as preoperatively but with a shift from high- to low-impact activities. This seems desirable from a surgeon's point of view but should also be communicated to the patient before 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".