Early femoral component migration: comparing the anterior and posterior approach to the hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Early femoral component migration is a useful indicator for identifying implants at risk of failure due to aseptic loosening. The goal of this retrospective study was to identify if anterior approach (AA) treated hips are at a higher risk of failure due to aseptic loosening caused by early migration compared to hips operated on using the traditional posterior approach (PA). METHODS: A total of 388 hips were included in this study, 139 AA and 249 PA treated hips. Femoral component migration was evaluated using EBRA-FCA and radiographs were assessed for radiolucency at latest follow-up. Preoperative and 2-year clinical outcomes were reported. RESULTS: > 0.05). Though not statistically significant, a higher percentage of AA hips passed 2-year total migration thresholds that have been associated with aseptic loosening compared to PA hips: 25.4% versus 16.5% for 1.5 mm threshold, and 11.3% versus 4.1% for the 2.7 mm threshold. Migration was not associated with the presence of radiolucent lines. All clinical outcomes improved significantly between preoperative and 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: There was no association between the AA and any significant increase in femoral component migration. A higher percentage of AA hips exceeded the migration thresholds associated aseptic loosening; however, these stems had no other indications of instability and therefore suggests that this may be a difference in migration pattern.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".