Bikini versus Traditional Incision Direct Anterior Approach: Is There any Difference in Soft Tissue Damage?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The direct anterior approach for total hip replacements has reported advantages of improved early function and muscle preservation. In an effort to improve healing and cosmesis, a change in the orientation of the incision has been proposed. Traditionally, the skin incision is in-line with the tensor fasciae latae muscle belly. The bikini incision is orthogonal to this orientation. The hypothesis was that muscle damage would be increased by using the bikini incision. METHODS: A traditional or bikini incision was performed on 18 cadaveric hips. On each of the 9 specimens, the traditional incision was performed on 1 side, and a bikini incision on the contralateral hip, with an even distribution of right or left side. Blinded anatomists performed the hip dissections, and assessed for muscle damage as well as for damage to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve. RESULTS: No difference in muscle damage was identified in the tensor fasciae latae between muscle groups. Muscle damage was very minimal to the gluteus medius and minimus. Damage to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve occurred equally for both the bikini and traditional skin incisions. CONCLUSIONS: The bikini incision for the direct anterior approach to the hip can be performed safely, with no increase in muscle damage or damage to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve compared to the traditional incision.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".