Reproducibility of Femoral Offset Following Short Stem and Straight Stem Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bone stock-preserving short stem prostheses have gained importance in total hip arthroplasty (THA) with the use of minimally invasive surgical procedures. Because of their metaphyseal fixation and their dependency on the calcar radius, it is unknown whether the femoral offset can be reproduced with the same accuracy following short stem vs standard stem THA. This study clarifies whether it is possible to restore the femoral offset using a short stem prosthesis (Fitmore; Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) compared with a conventional straight stem prosthesis (CLS; Zimmer) following minimally invasive implantation using an anterolateral approach. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, 80 patients underwent THA using a short stem (SS group; n=40) or CLS implant (control group; n=40). Follow-up examinations were conducted 6 weeks postoperatively. Radiological and functional outcomes were measured. Subjective assessment of quality of life was evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), the Short Form 36-item health survey (SF-36), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Pre- and postoperative comparison of the groups' change in offset showed no significant differences (SS group difference from pre- to postoperative, 6.1±6.5 mm; control group difference from pre- to postoperative, 6.5±7.1 mm; P=.93). Group comparison after 6 weeks revealed no significant differences in HHS, SF-36, or WOMAC. Based on these data, an equivalent reproducibility of the femoral offset was demonstrated following short stem and straight stem THA using a minimally invasive anterolateral approach. If the long-term results of short stems show a comparable survival, they represent a sensible alternative to standard 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".