Total hip arthroplasty in patients with slipped capital femoral epiphysis: a systematic analysis of 915 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is limited evidence on the outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) in Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis (SCFE) patients. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current literature in terms of survival rate, functional outcomes, complications and types of implants of THA in SCFE patients. Following the established methodology of PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Cochrane library, ScienceDirect and Ovid MEDLINE were systematically searched from inception to September 2018. The search criteria used were: ("total hip arthroplasty'' OR ''total hip replacement'' OR "hip arthroplasty'' OR ''hip replacement'') AND (''slipped capital femoral epiphysis'' OR ''slipped upper femoral epiphysis'' OR ''femoral epiphysis''). Ten studies were finally included in the analysis and were qualitatively appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. Variables were reported differently between studies. The sample size varied from 12 to 374 THAs. A total of 877 patients undergone 915 THAs. The mean reported follow-up ranged from 4.4 to 15.2 years and the mean patients' age at the time of THA from 26 to 50 years. Four studies specified the type of implants used, with 62% being uncemented, 24% hybrid (uncemented cup/cemented stem) and 14% cemented. All but three studies reported the mean survival of implants that ranged from 64.9% to 94.8%. A limited number of complications were mentioned. There was a tendency for more favorable functional outcomes in modern studies. Modern THA-studies in SCFE patients showed improvement of survivorship, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Future higher-quality studies are necessary to estimate long-term postoperative outcomes better.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".