The Natural History of the Anteriorly Dislocated Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dislocation with instability is one of the most frequent causes of early failure and subsequent revision following primary total hip arthroplasty. However, anterior hip dislocation has been shown to be a relatively infrequent event and there are little data on outcomes of patients with these types of dislocation. The purpose of the current study was to assess the functional outcomes and survival of the prosthetic hip in patients who have sustained an anterior dislocation and to compare these results with a similar cohort of patients who have sustained a posterior dislocation. The charts and radiographs of patients sustaining an anterior dislocation following primary total hip arthroplasty were reviewed at an average of 7 years after the index procedure. Redislocation rate, revision status, and function as assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) were examined. These were compared with an age- and gender-matched cohort of patients who had sustained a posterior dislocation. Patients sustaining an anterior dislocation were found to have a mean acetabular anteversion of 36 degrees, compared with 25.6 degrees in patients who had sustained a posterior dislocation. However, this did not result in any difference in revision rate or WOMAC score at the time of follow-up. The current evidence shows us that a single-posterior dislocation does not preclude a satisfactory long-term outcome. Based on their data, the authors feel it would be appropriate to counsel patients that a single-anterior dislocation also does not preclude a satisfactory outcome.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".