Comparative study of direct anterior and posterior approaches in total hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To observe the clinical effects and the recovery of joint function between direct anterior approach (DAA) of total hip replacement and conventional posterior approach (PA) surgery. Methods Cases of total hip arthroplasty in the orthopaedics department of Chengdu Fifth People’s Hospital from January 2016 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, haemoglobin concentration, acetabular abduction angle and joint function scores were compared between the two groups by chi-square test or independent t test. Results According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 55 patients treated with DAA (group DAA) and 57 patients treated with PA (group PA) were enrolled in the study. The operation time of DAA group was longer than that of PA group (t=2.64), the amount of bleeding during operation (t=17.47) and of drainage after operation (t=22.06) were less than that of PA group, the abduction angle of acetabulum was less than that of PA group (all P<0.05); the concentration of haemoglobin concentration in DAA group was significantly higher than that of PA group (t=3.44, P<0.05); the Harris and Western Ontario and Mcmaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores in DAA group were significantly higher than those in PA group one month after operation (t=4.44, 5.73; both P<0.05); but the WOMAC score in DAA group was lower than that in PA group at the last follow-up(t=5.96, P<0.05). Conclusion Total hip replacement with DAA approach has little blood loss and maintains better joint stability, and it is conducive to postoperative function recovery. Key words: Arthroplasty, replacement, hip; Recovery of function
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".