Does surgical approach influence mid- to long-term patient-reported outcomes after primary total hip replacement? A comparison of the 3 main surgical approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The most effective surgical approach to total hip replacement (THR) remains controversial. Most studies that have compared approaches have reported only short-term outcome data. It is therefore unclear in the literature if a particular surgical approach offers long-term advantages. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of the 3 main surgical approaches to THR on patient-reported outcomes 5 years after surgery. Methods: All patients who underwent a THR for osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis between 2008 and 2012 by an anterior, posterior or lateral approach at The Ottawa Hospital in Ontario, Canada, were included in the study. All preoperative and postoperative scores for the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaires were recorded. Analysis of covariance was used to study the relationship between the amount of change in scores on the HOOS and WOMAC subscales (dependent variables) and the surgical approach. The confounding factors of age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, Charnley classification and body mass index were included in the analysis. Results: There were 138 patients (37.6%) in the posterior approach group, 104 (28.3%) in the lateral approach group and 125 (34.1%) in the anterior approach group. There were no significant differences among the 3 groups in terms of Charnley classification, body mass index, sex, ASA class, surgical side and preoperative functional scores. We did not observe any significant differences in the amount of change in the scores for HOOS and WOMAC subscales among the 3 groups. There were also no differences in the final postoperative scores. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the choice of surgical approach in primary THR surgery without revision has no influence on functional outcomes and quality of life after 5 years. Further studies are needed to assess how patient age and sex may influence the functional outcome of individual surgical approaches.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".