Major complications after total hip arthroplasty with the direct anterior approach at a high-volume Ontario tertiary care centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The rate of major surgical complications for high-volume orthopedic surgeons using the direct anterior approach (DAA) in Ontario, Canada, is not known. The purpose of this study was to investigate the rate of major surgical complications after total hip arthroplasty (THA) using DAA performed by experienced orthopedic surgeons at a high-volume tertiary care centre in Ontario. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort review of primary THA through DAA performed by 2 experienced fellowship-trained surgeons at an academic hospital in London, Ontario, between Jan. 1, 2012, and May 1, 2019. We excluded the first 100 cases to allow for surgeon learning curves. We recorded major surgical complications (intraoperative events, postoperative periprosthetic fractures, dislocation requiring closed or open reduction, implant failure [aseptic loosening or subsidence], early (< 6 wk) deep wound infection requiring irrigation and débridement, late (≥ 6 wk) deep wound infection requiring irrigation and débridement, and wound complications [wound dehiscence, stitch abscess, erythema, hematoma or seroma]) within 1 year of THA. Results: A total of 875 primary DAA THA procedures were included. The rates of surgical complications were 0.9% for intraoperative events, 1.5% for postoperative periprosthetic fractures, 0.8% for implant failure, 0.7% for early deep wound infection, 0.1% for late deep wound infection and 3.2% for wound complications; there were no cases of dislocation. The rate of revision for implant failure within 1 year was 0.1%. Male sex was associated with a greater risk of implant failure (p = 0.01), and having a higher body mass index was associated with both increased rates of infection (p < 0.01) and having a wound complication (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Intraoperative events, postoperative periprosthetic fractures, implant failure, deep wound infection and wound complications accounted for the major surgical complications within 1 year of THA through DAA. The low revision rate suggests that DAA is a safe approach for THA.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".