MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729776798 · doi:10.1055/s-0037-1603964

Evaluating Surgeon Estimation of Cup Position in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Cadaver Study

2017· article· en· W2729776798 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan M. Vigdorchik, Michael B. Cross, Theodore T. Miller, Eric Bogner, Jeffrey M. Muir, Ran Schwarzkopf

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Hip Surgery · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsIntellijoint Surgical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiographyCadaverTotal hip arthroplastyOrthopedic surgeryOrthodonticsNuclear medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inaccurate placement of components during total hip arthroplasty (THA) can lead to significant postoperative complications including revision surgery. Traditionally, surgeons grossly estimate component positioning intraoperatively using anatomical landmarks; however, evidence indicates that this surgeon assessment may not be reliable. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of surgeon estimates of component position as compared with imaging (radiographs and computed tomography [CT] scan) and a new surgical navigation system. Three board-certified orthopaedic surgeons each performed four THA procedures on six cadavers (12 hips). Radiographs and CT scans were obtained postoperatively. The “gold standard” measurements of implanted cup anteversion and inclination were derived from three-dimensional renderings created from postoperative CTs. A reference value for cup position was created by aligning the anterior pelvic plane in each rendering coplanar with the CT table. Following each procedure, surgeons provided their estimate of acetabular cup component orientation. Surgeon estimates were compared with data gathered from postoperative radiographs, CT scans, and the navigation device. Surgeon estimates of anteversion and inclination were within 10 degrees of reference values in 64% (7/11) and 82% (9/11) of cases, respectively. Surgeon estimates of anteversion differed from reference values by a mean of 7.6 ± 5 degrees, whereas inclination differed from reference values by a mean of 6.1 ± 5.1 degrees (all means absolute). Radiographic measurements differed from reference values by 7.8 ± 4.3 degrees (p > 0.05) and 2.7 ± 2.3 degrees (p = 0.06) for anteversion and inclination, respectively, whereas CT values differed by 2.5 ± 1.6 degrees (p = 0.004) and 2.3 ± 2.1 degrees (p = 0.04). The navigation system differed from reference values by 4 ± 4 degrees (p = 0.08) and 4.2 ± 3.2 degrees (p = 0.31). Surgeons underestimated anteversion and inclination by 7.7 ± 4.8 degrees and 6.9 ± 4.8 degrees, respectively. Surgeon underestimation was observed in 8/11 (73%) cases, with anteversion underestimated by > 5 degrees in 5/8 (62%) cases and inclination underestimated by > 5 degrees in 4/8 (50%) cases. Our findings suggest that surgeons tend to underestimate both anteversion and inclination and that the accuracy of their estimates is similar to that of radiographs. CT scans and the navigation system were able to provide more accurate measurements of cup position.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Hip SurgerySame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207