MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399786909 · doi:10.1016/j.arth.2024.06.017

Impact of Offset and Leg Length on Functional Outcomes Post-Total Hip Arthroplasty: How Accurate Should Coronal Reconstruction Be?

2024· article· en· W4399786909 on OpenAlexaff
Camille Vorimore, Moritz Innmann, Sebastian Mavromatis, Andrew Speirs, Jeroen Verhaegen, Christian Merle, George Grammatopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Arthroplasty · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronal planeTotal hip arthroplastyMedicineArthroplastyOffset (computer science)OrthodonticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryComputer scienceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accurate hip reconstruction is associated with improved biomechanical behavior following total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, whether this is associated with improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is unknown. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: This study aimed to: 1) describe the ability to reconstruct coronal geometry during THA without advanced technology; 2) assess whether restoration of global offset (GO) and leg length (LL) is associated with improved PROs; and 3) investigate whether increased femoral offset (FO) to compensate for reduced acetabular offset (AO) influences PROs. METHOD: This was a prospective, multicenter, consecutive cohort study of 500 patients treated with primary THA without robotics or navigation. The Oxford Hip score (OHS) was obtained preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up. Supine anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were analyzed to determine AO, FO, GO, and LL relative to the native contralateral side. Contour plots for ΔOHS based on ΔLL and ΔGO were created, and ΔOHS was calculated within and outside various ranges (±2.5, ±5, or ±10 mm). RESULTS: In the operated hip, mean FO increased by 3 ± 6 mm (range, -16 to 27), while AO decreased by 2 ± 4 mm (range, -17 to 10). The contour graph for ±2.5 mm zones showed the best outcomes (ΔOHS >25) with GO and LL centered on 0 ± 2.5 mm (P < .01). However, only 10% achieved such reconstruction. When GO and LL differences were within ±10 mm, ΔOHS was superior when both AO and FO were within ±5 mm (mean: 24 ± 10; range, -5 to 40) compared with when FO was above 5 mm to compensate for a reduction in AO (mean: 22 ± 11; range, -10 to 46; P = .040). CONCLUSIONS: The PROs were associated with biomechanical reconstruction, and the best clinical improvement can be expected when GO and LL differences are both within 2.5 mm. Maintenance of AO is important, as compensation by increasing FO is associated with inferior OHS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ArthroplastySame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207