Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy Does Not Compromise Functional and Radiographic Outcomes of Femoral Stem Revisions with the Use of an Uncemented Modular Conical Stem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Stem revisions in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with proximal bone stock loss may be dealt with utilizing modular, uncemented conical stems. During stem extraction, surgeons may resort to extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO). However, ETO is associated with extensive blood loss and infections. This study compared the clinical outcomes, radiographic results and complications in THA revisions utilizing conical modular stem with and without ETO. Methods: Patients who underwent revision THA with or without ETO were assessed retrospectively. The minimal follow-up was 3 years. The functional evaluation included Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Short Form 36 (SF-36) as well as Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Numerical Rating Scale for pain assessment. The radiographic evaluation comprised bone defect assessment, osteotomy healing, stem migration and position, presence of radiolucent lines and stress shielding. Results: In total, 73 patients (80 hips) were included in the final analysis. The ETO group comprised 48 hips, and the no-ETO group comprised 32 hips. In the ETO group, pre-operative WOMAC scores were lower than in the no-ETO group (p = 0.012). No significant differences were found in terms of post-operative HHS, WOMAC, and NRS scores between groups, except worse results were found in the case of claw plate implantation. Patients in the no-ETO group exhibited better results in SF-36 than in the ETO-group. Osteotomy non-union was observed in four hips (9.5%). Stam varus/valgus position was within ±1.5 degrees (85.9%). Conclusions: ETO does not adversely impact outcomes in patients undergoing femoral stem revisions with modular conical stems. The invasive nature of these procedures prompts careful consideration in each case individually.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".