Impact of combined lumbar spine fusion and total hip arthroplasty on spine, pelvis, and hip kinematics during a sit to stand task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lumbar fusion is a risk factor for hip dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The objective was to compare joint/segment angles during sit-stand-sit in participants that had a THA with and without a lumbar fusion. The secondary objective was to compare pain, physical function, disability, and quality of life. This cross-sectional study includes participants that had THA and lumbar fusion (THA-fusion; n = 12) or THA only (THA-only; n = 12). Participants completed sit-stand-sit trials. Joint/segment angles were measured using electromagnetic motion capture. Angle characteristics were determined using principal component analysis. Hierarchical linear models examined relationships between angle characteristics and groups. Pain, physical function, and disability were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. Upper lumbar spine was more extended during sit-stand-sit in the THA-fusion group (b = 42.41, P = 0.04). The pelvis was more posteriorly and anteriorly tilted during down and end sit-stand-sit phases, respectively, in the THA-fusion group (b = 12.21, P = 0.03). There were no significant associations between group and other angles. THA-fusion group had worse pain, physical function, disability, and quality of life. Although differences in spine joint, pelvis segment, and hip joint angles existed, these findings are unlikely to account for the increased incidence of hip dislocation after total hip arthroplasty in patients that had spine fusion.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".