Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Are More Likely to Have Pain and Poor Function After Total Hip Replacements than Patients with Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Total hip replacement (THR) outcomes have been worse for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with those who have osteoarthritis (OA). Whether this remains true in contemporary patients with RA with a high use of disease-modifying and biologic therapy is unknown. The purpose of our study is to assess pain, function, and quality of life 2 years after primary THR, comparing patients with RA and patients with OA. METHODS: Baseline and 2-year data were compared between validated patients with RA and patients with OA who were enrolled in a single-center THR registry between May 1, 2007, and February 25, 2011. RESULTS: There were 5666 eligible primary THR identified, of which 193 were for RA. RA THR had worse baseline Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain (44.8 vs 53.2, p < 0.001) and function (38.7 vs 49.9, p < 0.001) compared with OA. These differences remained after surgery: pain (88.4 vs 94.0, p < 0.001) and function (82.9 vs 91.8, p < 0.001). Patients with RA were as likely to have a significant improvement as patients with OA (Δ WOMAC > 10) in pain (94% vs 96%, p = 0.35) and function (95% vs 94%, p = 0.69), but were 4 times as likely to have worse function (WOMAC ≤ 60; 19% vs 4%, p < 0.001) and pain (12% vs 3%, p < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression controlling for multiple potential confounders, RA increased the odds of poor postoperative function (OR 4.32, 95% CI 1.57-11.9), and in patients without a previous primary THR, worse postoperative pain (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.06-9.53). CONCLUSION: Contemporary patients with RA have significant improvements in pain and function after THR, but higher proportions have worse 2-year pain and function. In addition, RA is an independent predictor of 2-year pain and poor function after THR, despite high use of disease-modifying therapy.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".