Restoration of Hip Biomechanics after a Hemiarthroplasty for a Femoral Neck Fracture—Who Does It Better?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The restoration of the preoperative biomechanics of the hip, in particular leg length and femoral offset, are critical in restoring normal function and diminishing the risk of dislocation following hip arthroplasty. This study compares the consistency of arthroplasty and non-arthroplasty orthopedic surgeons in restoring the normal biomechanics of the hip when performing a hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of a femoral neck fracture. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the preoperative and postoperative digital radiographs of 175 hips that had a modular hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of a displaced femoral neck fracture at a Level 1 academic hospital. Fifty-two hips were treated by one of the three fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons (Group A), and 123 were treated by one of the nine non-arthroplasty fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons (Group B). Results: Patients in Group A were more likely to have their femoral offset restored to normal than patients in Group B, both with respect to under correcting the offset (p = 0.031) and overcorrecting the offset (p = 0.010). Overall, there was no difference in restoration of leg lengths between the two groups (p = 0.869). Conclusions: Following a hemiarthroplasty for a displaced femoral neck fracture, the normal biomechanics of the hip are more likely to be restored by an arthroplasty-trained surgeon than by a non-arthroplasty-trained surgeon. Identifying the inconsistency of non-arthroplasty surgeons and, to a lesser degree, arthroplasty surgeons in restoring hip biomechanics is important for sensitizing surgeons to rectify this in the future with appropriate templating and femoral implant selection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".