Total Hip Arthroplasty After Peri-Acetabular Osteotomy Results in Significant Improvement in Hip Function With Low Revision Rates at Mid-Term Follow-Up.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) improves symptoms and delays degenerative changes in patients with acetabular dysplasia. Yet, eventual total hip arthroplasty (THA) is needed in many of these patients. The impact of PAO on subsequent THA outcomes is not well defined. The purpose of this study is to define: 1) clinical outcomes, 2) post-operative complications and 3) implant survivorship for patients undergoing THA after prior ipsilateral PAO. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted at three institutions to identify individuals undergoing THA after ipsilateral PAO surgery with minimum 1 year follow up. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected preoperatively and at final follow-up. Surgical details, radiographic and clinical outcomes, and major complications according to the modified Dindo-Clavien classification system were identified through review of the medical record. Regression analysis and student's t-test were used to compare pre- and post-operative outcome scores. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to estimate reoperation-free survivorship. Results: A total of 113 THA in 112 patients were identified with initial review. 103 hips had a minimum of 1-year follow-up and an average follow of 5 ± 4 years (range, 1 to 20). 10 hips (9%) were lost to follow-up leaving 103 (91%) hips available for review with a minimum of 1-year follow-up (mean = 5 years). Mean interval from PAO to THA was 7.7 years (range, 2-15). The average post-operative mHHS improved 37 points (50 to 87, P < 0.001) when compared to pre-operative scores. Eight patients (7.1%) experienced a major grades III-V) surgical complication. These included 2 cases of instability, 2 cases of acetabular loosening, and one case each of periprosthetic fracture, wound dehiscence, periprosthetic infection, acetabular loosening and pneumonia. Failures occurred early at average 3.2 years and survivorship analysis for all-cause revision demonstrated 96% survivorship at both 5 and 10 years. Conclusion: .
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".