MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Direct Anterior Approach to Total Hip Arthroplasty Improves the Likelihood of Return to Previous Recreational Activities Compared with Posterior Approach

2022· article· en· W4205157052 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Mead, William D. Bugbee

Bibliographic record

VenueJAAOS Global Research and Reviews · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisTotal hip arthroplastyArthroplastyPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total hip arthroplasty offers relief and functional improvement, with the rate of direct anterior approach (DAA) increasing compared with the posterior approach (PA). This study aimed to assess the effect of surgical approach on return to recreational activity after total hip arthroplasty. Total hip arthroplasty performed for primary or posttraumatic osteoarthritis were identified; 100 DAA patients were matched with 100 PA patients on age, sex, diagnosis, and surgical year. Patients were mailed a recreational activity survey, Harris Hip Function, and Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score questionnaires. Two hundred surveys were mailed, 130 (65%) responded (66 DAA and 64 PA) and were included. The mean follow-up was 2.5 years for the DAA group and 2.3 years for the PA group (P = 0.256). Among DAA patients, 51% returned to activity within 6 months, compared with 44% of PA patients (P = 0.360). Among those who returned to activity, 71% in the DAA group tried their main presurgery sport, compared with 53% in the PA group (P = 0.019). Twenty-eight percent of DAA patients and 4% of PA patients reported the surgical approach influenced their return to activity (P = 0.001). Outcome scores were clinically similar between groups. Objective data did not favor one approach over the other.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAAOS Global Research and ReviewsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207