Inclinometer use in primary total hip arthroplasty does not improve acetabular component positioning: a non-randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common surgical procedure that aims to relieve pain, improve function, and increase mobility in patients with hip joint pathology. One of the most challenging aspects of THA is to determine the correct angle of the acetabular component's placement. Intraoperative inclinometers have emerged as a promising tool to obtain accurate measurements of the acetabular component's inclination. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and efficacy of using intraoperative inclinometers for THA. METHODS: This non-randomized control trial evaluated patients undergoing primary THA. Patients in the inclinometer group had an inclinometer used intraoperatively to measure acetabular component inclination, and patients in the control group had no inclinometer. Inclination and anteversion of the acetabular component were measured on postoperative radiographs. RESULTS: A total of 223 patients were included in the study. The mean inclination angle of the acetabular cup was significantly higher in the inclinometer group (43.9° vs. 41.5°, P < 0.001). This difference was not clinically significant. There was no significant difference in anteversion. There were no significant differences in the number of patients within the safe zones for inclination or anteversion, or in the number of patients experiencing a dislocation. No correlation was found between inclinometer measurement and measured acetabular component inclination. Inclinometer use and body mass index (BMI) were the sole statistically significant factors in determining acetabular component inclination. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated no current benefit to inclinometer use during primary THA, as measured by inclination, anteversion, and dislocation rate. However, this might be confounded by subtle variations in patient positioning, which may be a strong area of study in the future.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".