Relaxing hip precautions increased patient satisfaction and promoted quicker return to normal activities after total hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peak EL, Parvizi J, Ciminiello M, et al . The role of patient restrictions in reducing the prevalence of early dislocation following total hip arthroplasty. A randomized, prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87–A:247–53.[OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2] Q In patients who have had uncemented primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), does removal of several postoperative functional restrictions (PFR) reduce the risk of postoperative dislocation? ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: not concealed. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: unblinded. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: ⩾6 months ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: a university hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: 265 patients (303 hips) (mean age 58 y, 52% men) who received uncemented primary THA through an anterolateral approach. Exclusion criteria included previous surgery on the ipsilateral hip, hyperflexibility syndromes, and neuromuscular compromise (eg, Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease). ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Intervention: PFR (n = 152) or no PFR (n = 151). All patients were expected to limit the range of motion of the hip for the first 6 weeks to <90° of flexion and 45° of external and internal rotation, and to avoid … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BJournal%2Bof%2BBone%2Band%2BJoint%2BSurgery%26rft.stitle%253DJBJS%26rft.aulast%253DJung%26rft.auinit1%253DY.-B.%26rft.volume%253D87%26rft.issue%253D1_suppl_2%26rft.spage%253D247%26rft.epage%253D263%26rft.atitle%253DReconstruction%2Bof%2Bthe%2BPosterior%2BCruciate%2BLigament%2Bwith%2Ba%2BMid-Third%2BPatellar%2BTendon%2BGraft%2Bwith%2BUse%2Bof%2Ba%2BModified%2BTibial%2BInlay%2BMethod%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16140798%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16140798&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F4%2F115.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".