Posterior versus lateral surgical approach: functionality and quality of life after total hip arthroplasty in a matched cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the most controversial aspects for maximizing outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains the surgical approach to the hip joint. The posterior (PA) and lateral approaches (LA) are the two most commonly performed approaches used worldwide, but sparse data are available for their comparison in terms of health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). The aim of this study was to assess the role of the PA and LA in the HRQoL and hip functionality of patients who underwent primary and elective THA for osteoarthritis, after a minimum 2-year follow-up. METHODS: One hundred twenty-eight patients (140 THAs: 68 with PA and 72 with LA) were evaluated in a matched cohort study. Data gathered included the body mass index, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, surgery time, serum creatine phosphokinase (CpK) levels, estimated intraoperative blood loss and intra- or postoperative complications. Preoperatively and at the last follow-up, the activities of daily living, and the instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) scales, the Western Ontario and Mac Master University (WOMAC) Questionnaire, the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were used to assess HRQoL and functionality. The Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) Questionnaire was administered at the last follow-up. RESULTS: Postoperatively, CpK was higher in the LA group compared to the PA (695 ± 648 vs. 447 ± 326 UI/L, p < 0.001). At a mean follow-up of 47 ± 22 months for the LA group and 42 ± 29 months for the PA group, IADL, VAS, HHS and WOMAC scores significantly improved for both groups (all p < 0.001), but PA reported better VAS, residual pain and WOMAC scores (p = 0.002, p = 0.004 and p = 0.018, respectively). The PA group demonstrated a significant higher mental SF-36 subscale values than the LA group (49 ± 13 vs. 42 ± 19, p = 0.001). The LA group showed a higher number of Trendelenburg signs (p = 0.029). On the contrary, the PA group showed a higher number of leg lengthening (p = 0.020); however, most of these cases was less than the clinically significant value of 10 mm (p = 0.738). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent THA performed with the PA reported greater improvement in HRQoL with lower residual pain, postoperative muscle damage and Trendelenburg signs than those who underwent the LA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".