Comparison of postoperative effectiveness of less invasive short external rotator sparing approach versus standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Most of the studies assessing the corrective posterior total hip arthroplasty (THA) mainly focused on the mini-incision approach. Studies exploring the short external rotator sparing approach are rare. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of standard posterior approach and short external rotator sparing approach.Methods: This prospective observational study included 126 patients who underwent THAin 06/2017-06/2018. Patients were assigned to standard (standard posterior approach) and corrective (short external rotator sparing approach) groups based on the surgical method. Surgical data were recorded postoperatively. Postoperative hip joint recovery was assessed using the times to ambulation and independent stair use, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, Harris score, and Oxford hip score (OHS) at 2 and 8 postoperative weeks. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used for postoperative pain assessment.Results: Postoperative changes of creatine kinase (CK), myoglobin, CRP, and prosthesis position were similar in both groups (P > 0.05). However, intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001) and postoperative 6-hour drainage volume (P = 0.03), hospital stay, blood transfusion rate, and times to ambulation and independent stair use were significantly reduced in the corrective group. Postoperatively, Oxford and WOMAC scores significantly decreased in both groups. After surgery, the VAS score was more overtly decreased in the corrective group compared with the standard group.Conclusions: This study concluded that the less invasive short external rotator sparing approach for THA caused less damage, reducing perioperative blood loss, shortening functional recovery time, maintaining prosthesis stability, and improving postoperative pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".