Early Results of Cementless versus Hybrid Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients with Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Various types of THA were used in treatment of different forms of osteoarthritis. In this study, we aimed to compare the early results of cementless versus hybrid Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) in treatment of Posttraumatic Oste-oarthritis (PTOA). Aim of Study: Prospective comparative study. Patients and Methods: Twenty two cases were included in the study and they were divided into two equal groups; group A that performed cementless THA, group B that under-went hybrid THA. Perioperative circumstances of perioperative complications, operating room time, blood transfusion require-ments and length of hospital stay were reported. Post-operative evaluation was done using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Harris Hip Score (HHS). Results: Demographic data did not differ between the three study groups (p>0.05). Group B showed a significantly longer operative time (p=0.001). However, complications rate, blood transfusion requirements and length of hospital stay did not differ between the study groups (p>0.05). Addi-tionally, no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) was detected between groups as regard as Patient Reported Out-come Measures (PROMs). Conclusion: Intrathecal dexmedetomidine is superior to both dexamethasone and bupivacaine alone regarding duration of analgesia and pain severity. Moreover, it has more rapid onset and longer duration of sensory blockade. No significant side effects were noted when compared to the remaining groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".