Surgical Approach and Reaming Depth Influence the Direction and Magnitude of Acetabular Center of Rotation Changes During Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundChanges in acetabular or hip center of rotation (HCOR) commonly occur during acetabular component preparation during total hip arthroplasty (THA). HCOR displacement in mediolateral or superoinferior directions is known to influence offset and leg length, but the incidence and range of HCOR change in the anteroposterior direction is less understood as the sagittal plane cannot be measured on standard anteroposterior radiographs. This study assessed the 3-dimensional displacement of HCOR after cup implantation and evaluated for potential factors associated with increased acetabular component translations.MethodsA total of 894 THAs were performed using a posterior, lateral, or direct anterior approach. Only intraoperative data from the navigation device were included in the analysis. All THAs performed between September 2015 and October 2017 were included. Paired t-tests were used to compare native HCOR and new HCOR values.ResultsThe mean HCOR displacement in 3 directions was 4.97mm medially (P < .001), 0.83mm superiorly (P < .001), and 0.64mm posteriorly (P < .001). Subgroup analysis revealed greater posterior HCOR displacement with the anterior approach than the lateral/posterior approach (2.32mm vs 0.44mm; P < .001). Increasing medial HCOR displacement also resulted in increased superior and posterior HCOR displacement across surgical cases (P < .001).ConclusionsHCOR displacement is commonly observed in medial, superior, and posterior directions. HCOR changes are influenced by surgical approach, potentially secondary to patient positioning, with greater posterior HCOR displacement observed in anterior cases. Surgeons should be aware of these factors, particularly in cases with deficient or reduced posterior column bone stock.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".