Direct Anterior Approach to Total Hip Arthroplasty Improves the Likelihood of Return to Previous Recreational Activities Compared with Posterior Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".