Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy Via the Direct Lateral Approach in Revision Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A review of the results of the extended trochanteric osteotomy through a modified direct lateral approach in revision total hip arthroplasty was done. We reviewed 44 patients (45 procedures) at a minimum of 2 years followup (mean, 3.8 years; range, 2.1-7.2 years). There were 26 men and 18 women with a mean age at the time of surgery of 70.8 years (range, 36.9-90.4 years). Indications for use of the trochanteric osteotomy included facilitation of cement removal (25 procedures), proximal femoral varus deformity (14 procedures), trochanteric malposition (five procedures), and previous trochanteric osteotomies with significant bony overgrowth (three procedures). The mean length of the osteotomy was 133.9 mm. The mean migration of the osteotomized fragment was 2.1 mm (range, 0-20 mm) with significantly more proximal migration seen with the use of cerclage wires when compared with cables. There were two cases of trochanteric escape, for which the patients required repeat open reduction internal fixation. There were two late fractures of the greater trochanter. One femoral component had early subsidence for which the patient required re-revision with a further extended trochanteric osteotomy. The mean time to union of the remaining 40 hips was 10.3 months (range, 6-24 months). There only was one dislocation postoperatively. The extended trochanteric osteotomy through the modified direct lateral approach in revision total hip arthroplasty is a reproducible and reliable technique with a lower dislocation rate but a higher incidence of trochanteric fracture and escape than previously described with its use in the posterior approach.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".