Offset Considerations in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To perform total hip arthroplasty (THA) successfully, a surgeon must be able to place the implants in a position that will restore and duplicate the patient's baseline anatomy and soft-tissue tension. One of the critical factors is the restoration of femoral offset. It is the goal of this review to precisely define measurement of offset in THA, describe its role in hip joint biomechanics, outline alterations that can be performed intraoperatively, and explain how it can create potential pathologic states. If there is a lack of offset restoration, it can result in a host of complications, including bony impingement with pain, edge loading or prosthetic joint instability, and alterations in the muscle length-tension relationship leading to reduced motor performance. Excessive femoral offset can increase hip abductor muscle and iliotibial band tension resulting in greater trochanteric pain regardless of the surgical approach. The purpose of this review was to analyze intraoperative surgical factors, choice of prosthetic implant type and position that are required to maximize stability, and dynamic motor performance after THA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".