Femoral Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Performed through the Interval of the Direct Anterior Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: we report the clinical outcomes for femoral revision total hip replacement (THR) using the Direct Anterior Approach (DAA) interval. Methods: 149 patients (165 hips) with a mean age of 68.9 years (range, 33.2–91.0 years) and a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (1.1–8.9 years) were included. The indication for revision surgery was aseptic stem loosening in 131 (79.4%) hips, periprosthetic fracture in 29 (17.6%) hips, revision for stem malalignment in one (0.6%) hip, and prosthetic failure in four (2.4%) hips. Results: an endofemoral approach was used for 156 hips, and a Wagner transfemoral osteotomy was used for nine hips. An additional cup revision was done in 52 hips (uncemented cup: n = 29; cemented cup: n = 21; acetabular cage: n = 2). The overall complication rate was 14.5% (24 complications). Ten patients (10 hips) were revised (8 cups, 2 liners, 2 stems) with an average time to revision of 6 months (range, 3–23 months). The median preoperative Western Ontario McMasters Osteoarthritis Score (WOMAC) score was 52.5 (Inter Quartile Range (IQR): 33.3), which improved to 27.2 (IQR: 30) postoperatively (p < 0.01). Conclusion: use of the DAA achieved similar results when compared with other surgical approaches in terms of clinical outcomes and complications, including dislocation rate. These results suggest that femoral revision using the DAA interval can be a safe and reliable procedure.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".