Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty with patients in the lateral decubitus versus supine positions: A prospective, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be performed with patients in either in the lateral decubitus or supine position. Prompted by the lack of studies addressing differences between the two positions, this investigation aimed to examine clinical and radiographic outcomes and compare the lateral decubitus versus the supine position for THA using the DAA. METHODS: Between January 1 and October 1, 2020, 90 patients who underwent primary unilateral THA using the DAA were recruited, with 54 (60%) undergoing THA in the supine position (SP group) and 36 (40%) in the lateral decubitus position (LP group). Technical information, clinical and radiographic outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes, including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Short-Form-12 (SF-12) were evaluated. All data were subjected to several statistical tests. RESULTS: There were no preoperative differences in baseline characteristics between the LP and SP groups, which were also similar in terms of operative duration, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Radiographic assessment confirmed satisfactory positioning of the prosthesis in both groups. There were no significant differences in terms of CK-MB and hemoglobin levels, Harris Hip Score, WOMAC, UCLA, visual analog scale score, and SF-12. The incidence of complications in the LP group was lower than in the SP group. CONCLUSION: Total hip arthroplasty performed via DAA in the LP and SP groups yielded excellent clinical outcomes, although the incidence of complications in the former was lower than in the latter.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".