Radiological comparison of acetabular anteversion on roentgenograms and computed tomograms functional outcomes in total hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Orientation and Alignment of prosthetic components are vitally important for the stability of total hip arthroplasty. Poor acetabular positioning is one of the many issues implicated with persistent pain due to impingement, dislocation, edge loading and liner fracture, which may be lead to patient dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty. Material and methods: Post-operative radiological analysis of the version of acetabulum through X-ray images and CT images was performed. Pre & post-operative scoring according to Modified Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) was documented. Results: A total of 55 patients were included in the study. The mean anteversion angle calculated on anteroposterior (AP) radiographs by Lewinnek’s method was 23.480 (Range 11 – 390) and on cross-table lateral radiograph by Woo and Morrey's method was 22.410 (Range16 – 560), compared to CT Scans measured was 28.640 (Range 11.10 – 50.100). Conclusion: Majority 69.09% of patients had excellent functional outcomes in a range of 11.1 – 360 of anteversion compared to Lewinnek’s safe zone. It suggests that there is flexibility in positioning the acetabular component than previously believed. If one has to err, it should be towards more anteversion. Infact to avoid dislocation, more anteversion is required to guard against unwarranted activities on part of the patient.
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) | 0.000 | 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".