Current Uses of the Transtrochanteric Approach to the Hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The indications and technique for the transtrochanteric approach to the hip have evolved greatly since its initial popularization in the 1960s. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess current uses of this approach on the basis of indications, osteotomy technique, trochanteric fixation method, complications, and functional outcome. METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and Embase databases from January 2000 to July 2017 was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Articles were divided into 3 major categories on the basis of the type of hip surgery performed: (1) primary arthroplasty, (2) revision arthroplasty, and (3) joint-preserving procedures. Patient data were then analyzed according to these 3 categories. RESULTS: Seventy-six studies (5,028 hips), mainly of Level-IV evidence, were included. Four types of osteotomy were reported for a variety of indications. Rates of nonunion were 6.0% (303 of 5,028) across all studies, 4.2% (39 of 921) for primary arthroplasty, 6.7% (114 of 1,690) for revision arthroplasty, and 4.4% (56 of 1,278) for joint-preserving procedures. Rates of dislocation were 1.5% (14 of 921) for primary arthroplasty and 4.6% (77 of 1,690) for revision arthroplasty. The rate of osteonecrosis after joint-preserving procedures was 1.1% (14 of 1,278). Rates of deep infection were 1.1% (55 of 5,028) across all studies, 0.1% (1 of 921) for primary arthroplasty, 2.1% (36 of 1,690) for revision arthroplasty, and 0.6% (8 of 1,278) for joint-preserving procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The transtrochanteric approach remains useful in cases requiring extensile exposure of the acetabulum or femoral medullary canal. However, trochanteric complications continue to pose a clinical challenge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.014 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".