Defining modes of failure after joint-preserving surgery of the hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Joint-preserving surgery of the hip (JPSH) has evolved considerably and now includes a number of procedures, including arthroscopy, surgical dislocation, and redirectional osteotomies of the femur and acetabulum. There are a number of different factors which lead to failure of JPSH. Consequently, it is of interest to assess the various modes of failure in order to continue to identify best practice and the indications for these procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a retrospective observational study design, we reviewed 1013 patients who had undergone JPSH by a single surgeon between 2005 and 2015. There were 509 men and 504 women with a mean age of 39 years (16 to 78). Of the 1013 operations, 783 were arthroscopies, 122 surgical dislocations, and 108 peri-acetabular osteotomies (PAO). We analysed the overall failure rates and modes of failure. Re-operations were categorised into four groups: Mode 1 was arthritis progression or organ failure leading to total hip arthroplasty (THA); Mode 2 was an Incorrect diagnosis/procedure; Mode 3 resulted from malcorrection of femur (type A), acetabulum (type B), or labrum (type C) and Mode 4 resulted from an unintended consequence of the initial surgical intervention. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, there had been 104 re-operations (10.2%) with a mean patient age of 35.5 years (17 to 64). There were 64 Mode 1 failures (6.3%) at a mean of 3.2 years following JPSH with a mean patient age of 46.8 years (18 to 64). There were 17 Mode 2 failures (1.7%) at a mean of 2.2 years post-JPSH with a mean patient age of 28.9 years (17 to 42) (2% scopes; 1% surgical dislocations). There were 19 Mode 3 failures (1.9%) at a mean of 2.0 years post-JPSH, with a mean patient age of 29.9 years (18 to 51) (2% scopes; 2% surgical dislocations; 5% PAO). There were 4 Mode 4 failures (0.4%) at a mean of 1.8 years post-JPSH with a mean patient age of 31.5 years (15 to 43). Using the modified Dindo-Clavien classification system, the overall complication rate among JPSHs was 4.2%. CONCLUSION: 2017;99-B:303-9.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".