Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing two Methods of Acetabular Cup Positioning during Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Acetabular cup positioning is an important technical aspect in total hip arthroplasty. Most surgeons estimate cup abduction angle during surgery with the insertion rod position according to the patient's body anatomical landmarks or other reference points in the operating room. High acetabular component abduction angle is associated with an increased risk of dislocation, premature polyethylene wear and osteolysis. Method To evaluate the potential benefits of a new technique for vertical acetabular cup positioning, 100 acetabular cups were randomised to be inserted with or without an inclinometer. Abduction angles were measured on postoperative radiographs by 2 evaluators blind to the treatment group. Results Of the cups, 57% (27/47) were positioned within the desirable abduction angle range of 40°–49° with the inclinometer, compared with 50% (27/53) by visuospatial perception (p=0.454). The proportion of cups positioned outside a safe angle range of 30°–55° was low in both groups: 6% (3/47) for the inclinometer group versus 4% (2/53) for the visuospatial perception group (p=0.536). Conclusion The use of an inclinometer did not significantly improve the acetabular cup abduction angle obtained by our group of surgeons when compared with visuospatial perception. Newer techniques such as navigation may be useful in further optimising cup positioning and reducing the outliers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".