Acetabular Coverage After Innominate Osteotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A criticism of innominate osteotomy is that it may cause relative acetabular retroversion, predisposing to osteoarthritis. This study was designed to address that hypothesis. We had access to standing hip radiographs of 30 patients (36 hips) who had undergone open reduction and innominate osteotomy for late presenting developmental hip dislocation at least 40 years earlier. A single independent investigator used the validated method of Hefti (1995) to measure anterior and posterior acetabular coverage, contact area, and version. Ten operated hips had advanced osteoarthritis obscuring acetabular landmarks. Twenty-six operated hips were readable despite some radiographs showing signs of mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis. Twenty contralateral hips without developmental hip dysplasia formed a comparison group and 21 age-matched and sex-matched "normal hips" were used as a control. A significant difference between the groups was found for contact area (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the other 3 outcomes: anterior coverage (P = 0.509), posterior coverage (P = 0.135), and anteversion (P = 0.845). Anteversion in hips with a good outcome after innominate osteotomy and open reduction was not different to a control group of radiographically normal hips. The early osteoarthritic changes seen in these hips may relate to decreased contact area compared with the normal population. In this series, innominate osteotomy before the age of 5 years did not consistently cause acetabular retroversion that persisted into adulthood. Apparently unaffected hips contralateral to the dislocated side display reduced contact area relative to controls indicating probable occult dysplasia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".