Outcomes of total hip and knee arthroplasty in patients with haemophilia: A meta‐analysis of comparative studies and clinical practice recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: We aimed to compare the outcomes of total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA) in haemophilic patients compared to matched controls. METHODS: Through a literature search we identified all cohort studies comparing perioperative complications and other outcomes of THA and TKA in haemophilic patients and matched controls without haemophilia. Results of the same outcome measure assessed by two or more studies were pooled in meta-analyses; odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The risk of bias in included studies and certainty of evidence of each result were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the GRADE tool respectively. RESULTS: A total of five retrospective studies with matched controls were included; four of them were of good and one of fair quality. Based on moderate certainty evidence, compared to matched controls, patients with haemophilia had a significantly higher incidence of the following complications after a) TKA: periprosthetic joint infection [PJI; OR 1.6 CI (1.3, 1.9)], 1-year revision/re-operation [OR 1.4 CI (1.2, 1.8)] and b) THA: major and minor 90-day complications [major OR 2.2 CI (1.7, 2.9); minor OR 1.4 CI (1.1, 1.8)], venous thromboembolism [OR 3.1 CI (2.1, 4.6)]. PJI incidence in THA was not different in haemophilia compared to controls [OR 1.5 CI (.9, 2.6)]. CONCLUSION: Our results can be used by healthcare professionals counselling patients with haemophilia considering a THA or TKA as part of the informed consent process. We provide detailed clinical recommendations for the perioperative management of THA and TKA in haemophilic patients.
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 | 0.037 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".