Short‐Term Total Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis or Psoriatic Skin Disease Compared to Patients With Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with psoriasis have been poorly studied. This study was undertaken to assess whether patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or those with cutaneous psoriasis (PsC) without evidence of inflammatory joint disease are at an increased risk for worse outcomes after THA as compared to patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Among subjects in a prospective THA registry, PsA and PsC cases were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes, and all cases were matched with patients with OA as controls. Analyses were performed to identify predictors of poor postoperative pain or function. RESULTS: Of the 289 potential cases of PsA or PsC, 63 with PsA and 153 with PsC were validated. Self-report data were available postoperatively from 75% of PsA patients, 69% of PsC patients, and 94% of OA controls. In total, 51% of PsA patients and 56% of PsC patients were male, compared to 45% of OA controls (P = 0.04). Body mass index was higher in those with PsA or PsC (P = 0.002 versus controls). There were no differences in race or education between the 3 groups. PsA patients and PsC patients had more comorbidities than OA controls. PsA patients were more likely than PsC patients and OA controls to be current or previous smokers. Moreover, 54% of PsA patients were being treated with biologics or nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, compared to 8% of PsC patients. There were no significant differences in pre- or postoperative Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index scores for pain or function between the 3 groups. Short-Form 36 mental component summary scores were significantly better in the OA controls, both pre- and postoperatively (P = 0.006 and P < 0.001, respectively, versus PsA or PsC). EuroQol 5-domain health-related quality of life scores were significantly worse postoperatively for those with PsA or PsC (P < 0.0001 versus OA controls). In regression analyses, neither PsA nor PsC were risk factors for worse THA outcomes. Satisfaction with the outcomes of THA was similarly high among all 3 groups (P = 0.54). CONCLUSION: Neither PsA nor PsC are risk factors for poor outcomes after THA. This is important information to convey to patients with either PsA or PsC who are contemplating surgical intervention with THA.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".