Heterotopic ossification and clinical results after total hip arthroplasty using the anterior minimally invasive and anterolateral approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is considered the gold standard in the treatment of advanced osteoarthritis of the hip.The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO), the quality of life and the function in two groups of patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA), performed using the anterior minimally invasive (MIS) and the anterolateral approaches.Material and methods: Retrospective analysis of 597 patients who underwent THA in 2009-2013 was performed.In all 597 cohort data on medical history were retrieved.HO occurrence was recorded for 331 patients and was evaluated based on Brooker's scale in the X-ray scan.Functional and quality of life scores were obtained for 238 patients.The following scales were used for the survey: Harris Hip Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Visual Analogue Scale, and Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Satisfaction Scale.Results: Patients operated on from the MIS approach had statistically significantly (p < 0.05) better results with all the clinical scales used, except the Visual Analogue Scale (p > 0.05).HO was slightly more common after the MIS approach (52.5%) compared to the anterolateral approach (49.76%), though the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).Conclusions: The MIS approach was associated with better clinical and functional outcomes.In the aspect of HO, we were not able to show the superiority of the MIS approach in terms of incidence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".