Comparison of functional and patient-reported outcomes between direct anterior and lateral surgical approach one-year after total hip arthroplasty in a Canadian population: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: From a clinical perspective, it is important to understand the outcomes that occur after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and do these vary with surgical approach. The objective of the study was to compare physical performance-based and patient-report outcomes between the Direct Anterior (DA) and Direct Lateral (DL) surgical approach at one-year after THA surgery. METHODS: We evaluated patients attending their one-year follow-up assessment after primary elective unilateral THA surgery for osteoarthritis of the hip. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale, Falls Risk in Older People in a Community Setting, Timed Up and Go Test, 30-Second Chair Stand Test, Step Test, 6-Meter Walk Test, Harris Hip Score (HHS), Short-form 12 and the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were assessed. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated to evaluate the statistical difference between groups and the magnitude of the effects. RESULTS: In total, 135 individuals met the inclusion criteria and participated in the study. A statistically significant and clinically important difference in favor of the DA was found for the WOMAC (0.60, 95% CI (0.25, 0.95), p = .004), SF-12 Physical component (0.42, 95% CI (0.07, 0.76), p = .01) and 6-Meter Walk Test (0.52, 95% CI (-0.86, -0.17), p = .009). Small effect sizes, though not statistically significant differences, were found in favor of the DA approach for the other patient-report and physical performance-based measures. CONCLUSION: The WOMAC, gait speed and SF-12 Physical component scores were significantly different in favor of the DA procedure at one-year after THA. However, only the WOMAC scores exceeded a clinically important threshold in favor of DA approach. The other self-report and physical performance measures were not significantly different between the two procedures at one-year postoperatively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".