Decisional conflict in surgical patients: Should surgeons care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background:</h3> The choice of surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a contentious issue with regards to clinical outcome optimization and restoring patient function. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of surgical approach for THA on quantitative gait analysis. <h3>Methods:</h3> Patients undergoing THA for primary osteoarthritis of the hip were assigned to 1 of 3 surgical approaches: anterior, posterior and lateral. Standardized implants were used at the time of surgery. Three-dimensional gait analysis was performed preoperatively and at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively. At each time point, we compared temporal parameters, kinematics and kinetics. <h3>Results:</h3> We included 30 patients in our analysis (10 anterior, 10 posterior, and 10 lateral). The groups were similar with respect to age (<i>p</i> = 0.27), body mass index (<i>p</i> = 0.16), and Charlson Comorbidity Index score (<i>p</i> = 0.66). Temporal parameters were similar among the groups at all time points. The lateral cohort had higher pelvic tilt during stance on the affected leg than the anterior cohort at 6 weeks (<i>p</i> = 0.041). Affected leg ipsilateral trunk lean during stance was higher in the lateral group than in the other cohorts at 6 weeks (<i>p</i> = 0.008) and 12 weeks (<i>p</i> = 0.040). The anterior and posterior groups showed increased external rotation at 6 weeks (<i>p</i> = 0.003) and 12 weeks (<i>p</i> = 0.012) compared with the lateral group. <h3>Conclusion:</h3> Temporal gait parameters were similar following THA for all approaches. Differences in gait kinematics and kinetics exist; however, given the small absolute differences, the clinical importance of these changes remains undetermined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".