Undetected Intraoperative Pelvic Movement Can Lead to Inaccurate Acetabular Cup Component Placement during Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Mathematical Simulation Estimating Change in Cup Position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intraoperative patient movement is a common but underappreciated phenomenon in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Such movement can significantly affect the accuracy with which the acetabular cup component is implanted. To evaluate the effect of intraoperative movement on cup position, we performed a study using mathematical modeling to simulate intraoperative movement. Mathematical simulations were used to simulate pelvic movements during THA. Pelvic axial rotation, tilt, and obliquity were simulated, and the resulting changes in intended cup position were calculated. The rate of change of inclination and anteversion per degree of pelvic movement was calculated, establishing a ratio relating cup angle sensitivity to pelvic movement. These sensitivities were used to construct nomograms showing the per-degree effect of pelvic movement on cup position. The effect of pelvic movement on cup position was multifactorial and dependent on the intended cup orientation. For a cup intended to be inserted at 15° anteversion and 40° inclination, each degree of pelvic rotation induced changes of 0.64° and –0.20°, respectively. For this same cup orientation, each degree of pelvic tilt induced changes of 0.77° for anteversion and 0.17° for inclination. Pelvic obliquity was associated with a 1:1 ratio with inclination, with each degree of obliquity inducing 1° of change in inclination. Anteversion was unaffected by changes in pelvic obliquity. This study demonstrates the consequences of undetected pelvic movement on cup position, including the increased risk of the acetabular component being placed in an orientation that could increase wear or the likelihood of impingement and dislocation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".