MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200423727 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1079335/v1

Total Hip Arthroplasty After Failed Less Invasive Hip Preservation Surgery for Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W4200423727 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liang Mo, Jianxiong Li, Zhangzheng Wang, Fayi Huang, Pengfei Xin, Chao Ma, Jiahao Zhang, Haoran Huang, Chi Zhou, Yuhao Liu, Wei He

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Joint Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangzhou University of Chinese MedicineNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisFemoral headValgusHarris Hip ScoreSurgeryInclusion and exclusion criteriaArthroplastyTotal hip arthroplastyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BackgroundLess invasive hip-preserving surgery (LIHP) is an effective treatment in delaying total hip arthroplasty (THA) for young patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). But the success rate of it was not as effective as expected and were significantly reduced with the advancement of the diseases stages. Therefore, it is essential to analysis the impact of LIHP on subsequent THA.MethodsThe search language was restricted to Chinese and English, and the references of included studies were also searched. Chinese databases including CNKI, Wan-Fang databases and VIP, and English databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were searched by the computer from the inception of each database to 23rd May 2021. The outcome indicators were extracted from the included literature and analyzed by Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager software (RevMan version 5.4). The quality of the studies was scored using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS).ResultsA total of nine articles met the inclusion and were included in this meta-analysis, two of them were published in Chinese and the remaining studies were published in English. Results showed that the LIHP group has longer operative time (SMD=17.31, 95%CI=6.29 to 28.32, p=0.002), more intraoperative blood loss (SMD=79.90, 95%CI=13.92 to 145.87, p=0.02) and higher rate of varus or valgus femoral stem (OR=4.17, 95%CI=1.18 to 14.71, p=0.03) compared to primary THA group. The risk of intraoperative fracture was higher in the prior LIHP THA group compared with primary THA group but the difference was not statistically significant (OR=5.88, 95%CI=0.93 to 37.05, p=0.06). While there was no significant difference in cup anteversion angle (SMD=-0.10, 95%CI=-0.61 to 0.41, p=0.70), cup inclination angle (SMD=0.58, 95%CI=-0.05 to 1.22, p=0.07), postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) (SMD=-0.01, 95%CI=-0.43 to 0.46, p=0.96) and survivorship (OR=1.38, 95%CI=0.34 to 5.55, p=0.65) between THA groups with and without prior LIHP.ConclusionAlthough the prior LIHP increased the difficulty of the conversion to THA with longer operative time, more intraoperative blood loss, and higher rate of intraoperative fracture, it does not detrimentally affect the clinical results of subsequent THA in the mid-term following-up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.033
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.299
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.143 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicBone and Joint DiseasesFrench-language works237,207