Contemporary, non-navigation, cup orientation techniques improve accuracy and eliminate differences seen between the anterior and posterior approach in THA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to: (1) Determine the ability to achieve the surgeons' desired cup orientation, without navigation, using contemporary measures with the anterior- (AA) and posterior- approaches (PA); and (2) assess whether surgical approach is associated with cup orientation accuracy, as previously reported, when contemporary measures are used. METHODS: A prospective, 2-centre, multi-surgeon study of 400 THAs (200 AA; 200 PA) was performed. Intraoperative radiographs were obtained with the AA. A digital inclinometer and 3-point pelvic support were used with the PA. With the PA, intraoperative cup inclination at impaction was recorded. Radiographic inclination/anteversion (RI/RA) was measured from intraoperative radiographs (AA-only) and from postoperative radiographs for all cases. Optimum inclination/anteversion was defined as 40°/20° (±10°). The difference between intra- and postoperative orientations allowed for determination of the difference in pelvic position at impaction. RESULTS: = 0.41). The use of an inclinometer in the PA was associated with a smaller variability of inclination at implantation (10° vs. 14°) and counteracted the greater difference in pelvic position (4.4° vs. 2.1°) seen with the PA. CONCLUSIONS: Over 80% of cases can have optimum orientation without navigation, using simple, cheap contemporary measures. Such measures eliminate differences between approaches, related to patient position. Narrower implantation angles will further reduce variability in cup orientation achieved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".