Is Heterotopic Ossification Associated With Surgical Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although risk factors for heterotopic ossification (HO) have been defined, the effect from surgical approach is not fully understood. The primary objective of our study was to evaluate the effect that surgical approach has on the risk for developing severe HO after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and compare this with other known risk factors. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in HO formation based on the surgical approach. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent primary THA at our hospital between March 2011 and March 2021. Patients with HO documented in the radiology reports were cross-referenced with our THA data set and manually reviewed to determine Brooker classification. Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, surgical details, and medication information were collected from the electronic medical record and compared. RESULTS: Of 3,427 patients who underwent THA, 677 (19.8%) developed HO postoperatively. A multivariable analysis confirmed that surgical approach was independently associated with increased odds for HO development. The anterolateral (odds ratio [OR], 3.43; P < 0.001) and posterior (OR, 2.24; P < 0.001) approaches had increased odds for developing HO compared with the direct anterior approach. However, only the anterolateral approach (OR, 1.85; P = 0.033) demonstrated an increased association with the development of severe HO (Brooker 3, 4) postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Although the use of the direct anterior approach had the lowest overall OR for developing HO after THA, this is likely only clinically notable when compared with the anterolateral approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".