Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Equivalent Outcomes in Low and High Functioning Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies suggest that patients with poorer physical function prior to undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) have a lower postoperative functional outcome. We sought to determine if the preoperative level of function was predictive of the outcome in patients undergoing THA using modern perioperative protocols and surgical techniques. METHODS: A prospective cohort study design evaluated the preoperative and 2-year postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores of 200 patients who underwent THA. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the median preoperative Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical function scores. RESULTS: Both high and low function groups had significant improvements in the HRQoL scores (P < 0.001). However, this improvement was substantially greater in the low function group, resulting in no difference in the HRQoL outcomes of the two groups at final follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study contradicts the previously held belief that patients with worse function before THA do not do as well as those with less preoperative disability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".