Comparison between simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty with and without drainage: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty (SBTHA) is an effective procedure for patients with disease bilaterally. But there is concern about increased blood loss and complications of SBTHA than staged total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aimed to evaluate the differences in the clinical outcomes and complication rate of SBTHA with drainage and without drainage for reducing the concerns. Between October 2015 and April 2019, a retrospective cohort study was conducted with modified minimally invasive 2-incision method and a consecutive series of 41 SBTHA performed with drainage (Group I) were compared to 37 SBTHA performed without drainage (Group II). It was assessed clinically and radiographically for a mean of 2.1 ± 0.8 years (range, 1.0-4.8 years). Postoperative hematologic values (Hgb loss, total blood loss, transfusion rate), pain susceptibility, functional outcome (Harris Hip Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score) and complication were compared in the drained group and the non-drained group. Postoperative Hgb loss (I: 2163.2 ± 698.7 g, II: 1730.4 ± 572.5 g; P = .002), total blood loss (I: 1528.8 ± 421.7 mL, II: 1237.6 ± 325.9 mL; P = .001) and mean transfusion unit (I: 0.7 ± 1.0 IU, II: 0.1 ± 0.3 IU; P < .001) were significantly lower in the without drainage group than in the with drainage group. But the morphine equivalent (I: 132.7 ± 314.1 mg, II: 732.2 ± 591.5 mg; P < .001) was significantly larger in the without drainage group. No significant difference was found between the drainage group and without drainage group in Harris Hip Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score at final follow-up. SBTHA without drainage can reduce postoperative blood loss and the requirement for transfusion without increasing other complication. But SBTHA without drainage is more painful method than SBTHA with drainage. Therefore, SBTHA without drainage will be a good option to reduce the burden on the patient by reducing postoperative bleeding if it can control pain well after surgery. III, Retrospective case-control study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".