Mild upward placement of acetabular implants has good mid and long-term outcome following total hip arthroplasty for developmental dysplasia of hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the mid and long-term effects of selectively upward placement of acetabular implants on post-operative function and implant survival rate of cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) in developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) patients. Methods Inclusion criteria: hip dysplasia followed by osteoarthritis, total hip replacement; the use of non-cemented hip prosthesis; all surgeries were performed by the same group of doctors.Exclusion criteria: missing visit or incomplete follow-up data; bilateral total hip arthroplasty was performed simultaneously; osteoarthritis secondary to hip dysplasia. Twenty-four cases were received the final follow-up in selective 26 cases of DDH received THA between January 2008 and December 2013, including five males and 19 females with an average age of (62±11) years.The left hip was involved in seven cases and the right hip in 17 cases, including 10 cases of Crowe type I, eight cases of Crowe type II, six cases of Crowe type III. The Harris score and Western Ontario and McMaster University scores(WOMAC) were analyzed at the last follow-up compared to pre-operation. The anteroposterior X-ray films of the pelvis, anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films of the femur were performed routinely before operation and follow-up. Age, follow-up time, score and surgical indicators were analyzed by t test or rank sum test, respectively. Results The follow-up time was (80± 23) months.The Harris score improved to(91±13)from (43±13) (Z=-5.867, P 0.05). Conclusion The placement of acetabular components in an anatomic position and less than 15mm superior to the approximate femoral head center could promote middle and long-term satisfaction after cementless THA in DDH patients. Key words: Hip dislocation, congenital; Arthroplasty; Hip; Prosthesis fitting
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".