Orthopaedic surgery in haemophilia patients with inhibitors: a practical guide to haemostatic, surgical and rehabilitative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All but essential surgery is generally avoided in haemophilia patients with inhibitor antibodies, because of concern about the reliability with which haemostasis can be achieved and maintained in such patients. Orthopaedic surgical procedures which are not required to preserve life fall under this category. As a result, patients with inhibitors may be denied operations, which could greatly enhance their quality of life, and which are routinely offered to other haemophilia patients. While caution is appropriate in recommending surgery in any circumstance, we believe that the threshold for offering validated surgical procedures to patients with inhibitors should be re-evaluated in the light of current surgical and rehabilitative techniques, and the long experience with safe and effective factor VIII inhibitor bypassing agents, namely activated prothrombin complex concentrates and recombinant activated factor FVII. In this article, we review the haematological, surgical and rehabilitative considerations relevant to orthopaedic surgery in haemophilia patients with inhibitors, and provide recommendations for carrying out such procedures.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.013 |
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".