Abductor Muscle Force after Straight-Stem Compared to Short-Stem Total Hip Arthroplasty through a Modified Direct Lateral Approach: Functional Assessment of 70 Consecutive Patients of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of preservation of proximal femoral bone stock and minimized soft tissue trauma, short-stem implants are becoming increasingly important in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The postulated advantage regarding the functional outcome has not been verified. We hypothesized an increased abductor muscle strength by the use of a short-stem design. Seventy consecutive patients of a randomized clinical trial were included. Of these, 67 patients met the inclusion criteria after 12 months. Thirty-five patients received a standard straight stem and 32 patients a short-stem femoral component. All surgeries were performed by a modified direct lateral approach. Isometric muscle strength of the hip abductors was evaluated preoperatively 3 and 12 months after surgery. Harris hip score (HHS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were evaluated. After three months, there were no differences between the two groups; the abductor force was comparable to the preoperative initial values. After 12 months, a significant increase in muscle strength for the short stem patient group compared to preoperative baseline values was measured (straight-stem THA, 0.09 Nm/kg ± 0.4, p = 0.32; short-stem THA, 0.2 Nm/kg ± 0.3, p = 0.004). Comparison of the 12-month postoperative total HHS and WOMAC revealed no significant differences between both groups. A significant increase in hip abductor muscle strength 12 months after short-stem THA compared to conventional-stem THA was observed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".