Model-Based Acetabular Cup Orientation Optimization Based on Minimizing the Risk of Edge-Loading and Implant Impingement Following Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a computationally efficient model-based method for determining patient-specific optimal acetabular cup alignment for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is presented. The proposed algorithm minimizes the risk of implant impingement and edge-loading, which are reported as the major causes of hip dislocation following THA. First, by using motion capture data recorded from the patient performing different daily activities, the hip contact force and the relative orientation of the femur and pelvis are calculated by a musculoskeletal model. Then, by defining two quantitative indices, i.e., angular impingement distance and angular edge-loading distance (AED), the risk of impingement and edge-loading are assessed for a wide range of cup alignments. Finally, three optimization criteria are introduced to estimate the optimal cup alignment with a tradeoff between the risk of impingement and edge loading. The results show that patient-specific characteristics such as pelvic tilt could significantly change the optimal cup alignment, especially the value of cup anteversion. Therefore, in some cases, the well-known Lewinnek safe zone may not be optimal, or even safe. Unlike other dynamic model-based methods, in this work, the need for force plate measurements is eliminated by estimating the ground reaction forces and moments, which makes this method more practical and cost-efficient. Furthermore, the low computational complexity due to analytical formulas makes this method suitable for both pre-operative and intra-operative planning.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".