Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No formal systematic review or meta-analysis was performed up to now to summarize the risk factors of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty(THA). AIMS: The present study aimed to quantitatively and comprehensively conclude the risk factors of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: A search was applied to CNKI, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane central database (all up to October 2016). All studies assessing the risk factors of dislocation after revision THA without language restriction were reviewed, and qualities of included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were pooled and a meta-analysis completed. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies were selected, which altogether included 4656 revision THAs. 421 of them were cases of dislocation occurred after surgery, suggesting the accumulated incidence of 9.04%. Results of meta-analyses showed that age at surgery (standardized mean difference -0.222; 95% CI -0.413-0.031), small-diameter femoral heads (≤28 mm) (OR 1.451; 95%CI 1.056-1.994), history of instability (OR 2.739; 95%CI 1.888-3.974), number of prior revisions ≥ 3 (OR, 2.226; 95% CI, 1.569-3.16) and number of prior revisions ≥ 2 (OR 1.949; 95% CI 1.349-2.817), acetabular components with elevated rim liner were less likely to develop dislocation after revision THA (OR 0.611; 95% CI 0.415-0.898). CONCLUSIONS: Related prophylaxis strategies should be implemented in patients involved with above-mentioned risk factors to prevent dislocation after revision THA.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it