The outcomes of total hip replacement in osteonecrosis versus osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of THA in patients with osteonecrosis (ON) and those with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception till December 2022 for original studies that compared the outcomes of THA in ON and OA. The primary outcome was the revision rate; the secondary outcomes were dislocation and Harris hip score. This review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: A total of 14 observational studies with 2,111,102 hips were included, with a mean age of 50.83 ± 9.32 and 55.51 ± 8.95 for ON and OA groups, respectively. The average follow-up was 7.25 ± 4.6 years. There was a statistically significant difference in revision rate between ON and OA patients in favour of OA (OR: 1.576; 95%CI: 1.24-2.00; p-value: 0.0015). However, dislocation rate (OR: 1.5004; 95%CI: 0.92-2.43; p-value: 0.0916) and Haris hip score (HHS) (SMD: - 0.0486; 95%CI: - 0.35-0.25; p-value: 0.6987) were comparable across both groups. Further sub-analysis adjusting for registry data also showed similar results between both groups. CONCLUSION: A higher revision rate, periprosthetic fracture and periprosthetic joint infection following total hip arthroplasty were associated with osteonecrosis of the femoral head compared with osteoarthritis. However, both groups had similar dislocation rates and functional outcome measures. This finding should be applied in context due to potential confounding factors, including patient's age and activity level.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".