Outcomes and complications of patients undergoing Salter’s innominate osteotomies for hip dysplasia: a systematic review of comparative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this systematic review is to assess outcomes and complications of patients undergoing Salter’s innominate osteotomies (SIOs) for the correction of hip dysplasia along with patient and technical factors that can be optimized to improve outcomes after SIO. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from data inception to 9 October 2018. Data were presented descriptively. Twenty-seven studies were identified including 1818 hips (87.1%) treated with SIO (mean age of 2.1 ± 2.5 years and mean follow-up of 3.5 ± 5.0 years). Patients undergoing SIO had a post-operative center-edge angle (CEA) of 31.3° ± 5.3° and an acetabular index (AI) angle of 16.1° ± 5.2°. Patients undergoing SIO with pre-operative traction had significantly lower (P = 0.049) post-operative McKay criteria scores compared to patients without pre-operative traction. Patients undergoing SIO between the ages of 1.5–2 years had significantly better (P < 0.05) post-operative McKay criteria scores compared to patients aged 4–6 years. The complication rate was 9.4% with avascular necrosis (2.5%) being most common. This review found that SIO for developmental dysplasia of the hip produces generally good post-operative clinical outcomes. The CEA and AI can be corrected to normal range after SIO. Patients may have superior outcomes if they have SIO at a younger age, were not treated with pre-operative traction and did not have untreated contralateral hip dysplasia. Outcomes appear to be similar between one-stage bilateral SIO and a two-stage procedure in the setting of bilateral hip dysplasia; however, more multicentered studies are needed to confirm these results.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".