Surgical Technique and Case Series of Total Hip Arthroplasty with the Hueter Anterior Approach for Crowe Type-IV Dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is being increasingly performed via the Hueter anterior approach (HAA), which has proven benefits with nondysplastic hips; however, little has been published on its outcomes with dysplastic hips, where it can provide better acetabular exposure. We describe our technique for THA via the HAA in hips with Crowe type-IV developmental dysplasia and report the mid-term outcomes of cases that were performed over 5 consecutive years. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated a continuous series of 8 hips (6 patients) with Crowe type-IV dysplasia; the patient ages ranged from 44 ± 20 years (range, 17 to 65 years) at the index THA. All of the patients received uncemented implants via the HAA on a traction table to restore the hip center of rotation to the true acetabulum. Femoral head autografts (FHAs) were used to increase acetabular coverage in 6 hips, and subtrochanteric shortening osteotomies (SSOs) were performed in 5 hips. Patients were assessed clinically and radiographically at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. RESULTS: There were no revisions, deaths, dislocations, or infections. Two hips (25%) had intraoperative complications, and 1 hip (13%) had a postoperative complication that required reoperation without implant removal. All of the hips were assessed clinically and radiographically at 4 ± 1 years (range, 2 to 6 years). The modified Harris hip score (mHHS) improved from 33 ± 7 to 90 ± 7, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) improved from 53 ± 14 to 89 ± 6; the postoperative leg-length discrepancy was 3.2 mm (range, -10 to 20 mm). None of the hips had osteolysis or radiolucent lines of >2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: THA via the HAA on a traction table for hips with Crowe type-IV dysplasia yielded satisfactory mid-term outcomes. Both FHA and SSO can be adequately performed via the HAA to help restore the hip center of rotation to the true acetabulum. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".