MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003560238 · doi:10.29007/3lbz

Accuracy of Image-less Navigation for Functional Cup Positioning in Total Hip Arthroplasty

2019· article· en· W3003560238 on OpenAlexaff
Morteza Meftah, Vinnay Siddappa, Jeffery Muir, Peter White

Bibliographic record

VenueEPiC series in health sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsIntellijoint Surgical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal hip arthroplastyRadiographyMedicineSignificant differenceOrthodonticsMean differenceNuclear medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer-assisted navigation has the potential to improve the accuracy of cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty (THA) and prevent leg length discrepancy (LLD). The purpose of this study was to compare acetabular cup position and post- operative LLD after primary THA using posterolateral approach. Between August 2016 to December 2017, 57 THAs using imageless navigation were matched with 57 THA without navigation, based on age, gender and BMI. Post-operative weight-bearing radiographs were assessed using for anteversion, inclination and LLD. Goal for functional cup placement was 40° inclination and 20° anteversion based on preoperative weight bearing pelvic images. Functional LLD was measured as compared to pre- operative radiographs and contralateral side. Proportion of cups within Lewinnek’s safe zone, proximity to a pre-operative target of and the LLD >5 mm was assessed. The mean age was 54.9 ± 9.6 years (30 – 72) and 57.6 ± 12.5 years (20 – 85) in control and navigated groups, respectively. Mean cup orientation in the navigated group was 20.6°± 3.3° (17 - 25) of anteversion and 41.9°± 4.8° (30 - 51) of inclination, vs. 25.0°± 11.1° (10 - 31) and 45.7°± 8.7° (29 – 55) in control group, where were statistically significant (p=0.005 and p=0.0001), respectively. In the navigated group, significantly more acetabular cups were placed within Lewinnek’s safe zone (anteversion: 78% vs. 47%, p=0.005; inclination: 92% vs. 67%, p=0.002). There was no significant difference in mean LLD in navigation and control groups (3.1 ± 1.5 mm vs. 4.6 ± 3.4 mm, p=0.36), although fewer LLDs >5 mm were reported in the navigated group (7.1%) than in controls (31.4%, p=0.007). The use of this image-less computer-assisted navigation improved the accuracy with which acetabular cup components were placed and may represent an important method for limiting post-operative complications related to cup malpositioning and LLD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPiC series in health sciencesSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207