Association between changes in global femoral offset after total hip arthroplasty and function, quality of life, and abductor muscle strength
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is no consensus on the association between global femoral offset (FO) and outcome after total hip arthroplasty (THA). We assessed the association between FO and patients' reported hip function, quality of life, and abductor muscle strength. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 250 patients with unilateral hip osteoarthritis who underwent a THA. Before the operation, the patient's reported hip function was evaluated with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index and quality of life was evaluated with EQ-5D. At 1-year follow-up, the same scores and also hip abductor muscle strength were measured. 222 patients were available for follow-up. These patients were divided into 3 groups according to the postoperative global FO of the operated hip compared to the contralateral hip, as measured on plain radiographs: the decreased FO group (more than 5 mm reduction), the restored FO group (within 5 mm restoration), and the increased FO group (more than 5 mm increment). RESULTS: All 3 groups improved (p < 0.001). The crude results showed that the decreased FO group had a worse WOMAC index, less abductor muscle strength, and more use of walking aids. When we adjusted these results with possible confounding factors, only global FO reduction was statistically significantly associated with reduced abductor muscle strength. The incidence of residual hip pain and analgesics use was similar in the 3 groups. INTERPRETATION: A reduction in global FO of more than 5 mm after THA appears to have a negative association with abductor muscle strength of the operated hip, and should therefore be avoided.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".