The Reconstruction Accuracy of the Hip Center of Rotation After Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty for Failed Treatment of Acetabular Fractures. Does It Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background To assess the impaction of reconstruction accuracy of hip center of rotation (COR) on midterm clinical and radiographic results of cementless reconstruction of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) for patients after failed treatment of acetabular fractures. Methods One hundred and four patients (107 hips) who underwent THAs after failed treatment of acetabular fractures were retrospectively evaluated and cementless cups and stems were implanted in all hips. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Harris hip score (HHS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scoring system. Radiographic results were analyzed by serial perioperative x-rays. Results At the latest follow-up examination, the median HHS increased from 52 (42-65) before surgery to 93 (90-97) (p < 0.001) and the median WOMAC decreased from 52 (36-65) before surgery to 5.8 (1.5-8) (p < 0.001). Compared with normal contralateral hip, 79 cups migrated superiorly (0.2-33.6mm) and 22 cups migrated inferiorly (0.2-16.1mm). The distance of superior migration of reconstructed COR was correlated with positive Trendelenburg sign at the latest follow-up examination (r=0.504; p < 0.001). The percentage of postoperative Trendelenburg sign was significantly higher in superior migration subgroup than that in subgroup with anatomical restoration of COR (P=0.015). Conclusions Cementless THAs in patients after failed treatment for acetabular fractures achieved predictable clinical and radiographic outcomes. A superiorly migrated hip COR appeared to exert a negative effect on abductor muscle function.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".