Forgotten joint score associated with prosthesis weight in cementless total hip arthroplasty: a prospective clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This prospective study aimed to investigate the influence of weight difference between implanted prosthesis and removed bone in cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) on hip awareness and patient-reported outcomes. Methods A total of 48 patients (56 hips) who underwent primary THA were prospectively enrolled. Implanted prosthesis and removed bone were weighed intraoperatively. Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) scores were obtained before and at 1 and 3 months after surgery. Patients were divided into groups A, B, and C according to the percentile of the weight difference. Results The mean weight difference of the implanted prosthesis and removed bone was 117.97 ± 47.35 g. A negative correlation was found among the weight differences of the three groups and 1- and 3-month postoperative FJS (correlation coefficients, −0.331 and −0.734, respectively). A positive correlation was found among the weight difference of the three groups and 3-month postoperative WOMAC (correlation coefficient, 0.403). A significant difference in 3-month postoperative FJS and WOMAC scores was found among the three groups. The mean 3-month postoperative FJS (79.00) of group C was significantly lower than that of group A (93.32) ( P < 0.05). The mean WOMAC score (15.83) of group A was significantly lower than that of group C (23.67) ( P < 0.05). Conclusion The implanted prosthesis is larger than the removed bone in cementless THA. The weight difference is negatively correlated with hip function. The weight difference should be minimized to achieve optimal hip joint awareness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".