Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Patients with Prior Hartofilakidis Type C Hip Dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical and radiological results of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for patients with previously diagnosed Hartofilakidis type C hip dysplasia, which is technically challenging and lacks literature. METHODS: We enrolled 20 patients with previously diagnosed Hartofilakidis type C hip dysplasia who underwent revision THA between November 2008 and July 2015 at our hospital. Patients were followed up for an average of 87 months. Data pertaining to the Harris hip score (HHS), modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), general satisfaction, and the level of satisfaction related to 16 hip functions or issues experienced after revision THA were collected. The vertical and horizontal center of rotation (COR) of the hips were measured bilaterally based on preoperative and postoperative anteroposterior radiographs. Categorical variables were analyzed by the chi-square test. Continuous variables were analyzed using the student's t test or non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. RESULTS: There were significant postoperative improvements in the HHS (47.4 ± 31.6 vs 70.1 ± 39.0), modified WOMAC (48.5 ± 27.9 vs 75.7 ± 36.8), and the vertical (45.7 ± 33.7 mm vs 21.6 ± 21.8 mm) and horizontal (41.8 ± 17.0 mm vs 31.4 ± 14.7 mm) offset of the COR after revision THA (P < 0.05). Fifteen (75.0%) patients were satisfied with the procedure. The satisfaction rate for each of the 16 items ranged from 45% to 100%. The top three dissatisfactory items were squatting, getting into/out of cars, and leg-length discrepancy. Postoperatively, dissatisfied patients had a significantly higher visual analogue scale pain score and lower WOMAC pain, HHS pain, WOMAC total, and HHS total scores, a lower satisfaction rate for pain relief, and a higher vertical COR. CONCLUSION: There is a high rate (25%) of dissatisfaction with the outcome after revision THA for patients with prior Hartofilakidis type C hip dysplasia. The most likely reasons for dissatisfaction were inadequate pain relief and a higher vertical COR measured on radiography.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".