MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301723691 · doi:10.1177/112070001002000115

Modified Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy with Preservation of Posterior Structures

2010· article· en· W2301723691 on OpenAlexaff
Dror Lakstein, Yona Kosashvili, David Backstein, Oleg Safir, Allan E. Gross

Bibliographic record

VenueHip International · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNonunionOsteotomySurgeryGreater trochanterPeriprostheticTrochanterFemurOsteoporosisArthroplastyFemoral neck

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the study was to describe the technique and the clinical results of the modified extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) with a lateral approach to the hip. This osteotomy differs from those previously described, as it preserves the posterior part of the greater trochanter and its attached external rotators, the aim of this modification being to minimize the rate of hip dislocation. We reviewed the results of 105 extended sliding trochanteric osteotomies performed between January 2000 to January 2008. The indication for surgery was aseptic loosening in 83 cases, periprosthetic fractures in 10 cases, stem fracture in 5 cases, infection in 5 cases and instability in 2 cases. Minimum follow up was 20 months (mean, 65; range, 20–120 months). Mean length of the osteotomy was 17.6 cm (range, 9–30 cm). Mean Harris hip score improved from 39 points preoperatively to 73 at last follow up. Six stems (6%) needed revision for loosening. There was one case (1%) of osteotomy nonunion, and one case (1%) of greater trochanteric fragment nonunion and escape. Four patients (4%) dislocated postoperatively. In conclusion, our series of ETOs reveals a low dislocation rate achieved by preservation of the attachment of the external rotators and posterior capsule, and exhibits a union rate comparable to that of other series. We recommend the use of ETO in revision surgery of cemented stems and cementless well fixed distal ingrowth stems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHip InternationalSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207