A Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Supine and Lateral Patient Positioning in Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Surgical Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background To determine any differences in clinical outcomes between patients in the supine vs the lateral position during anterior-based muscle sparing (ABMS) total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods A retrospective review was performed of 368 patients undergoing THA via the ABMS approach (201 lateral vs 167 supine position) at our institution (2015-2019) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Inclusion criteria were all patients undergoing primary THA. Exclusion criteria were any revision surgeries and patients who did not undergo the ABMS THA. Outcomes assessed were postoperative complication rates, ambulation distance, length of stay, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain, stiffness, and physical function scores at 3 time periods (preoperative, 3 months postoperative, and 1 year postoperative). Results The supine group had significantly greater postoperative day 0 ambulation distance (150 vs 60 meters; P < .001), while no difference was observed on postoperative day 1 (210 meters in supine vs 200 in lateral; P = .921). Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the supine group (1; interquartile range 0-1) with respect to the lateral group (1; interquartile range 0-2; P < .001). The in-hospital complication rates (2.4% in supine vs 1.5% in lateral; P = .780), return to operating room rates (2.4% in supine vs 1.5% in lateral; P = .780), and readmission rates (5.4% in supine vs 5.0% in lateral; P = .631) were not significantly different between the groups. No significant differences were observed across any Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores. Conclusions Both supine and lateral patient positioning provide acceptable early surgical outcomes, suggesting that satisfactory results can be obtained via both positions in THAs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".