MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403996166 · doi:10.18103/mra.v12i10.5891

Dynamic Leg Length Discrepancy in Hip Arthroplasty Patients: What is the Amount a Patient Can Accept Without a Limp? How to Avoid Medical-Legal Issues

2024· article· en· W4403996166 on OpenAlexaff
Steven J. Massoeurs, J Lorne Leahey, Islam Elnagar, R. K. Leighton

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Research Archives · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimpMedicineHip arthroplastySurgeryArthroplastyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Leg length discrepancy (LLD) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common occurrence that can spoil an otherwise excellent clinical outcome1,2 as well as have medical-legal ramifications3. Scientifically, the amount of LLD that is clinically significant in THA patients is not well established4,5. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between static leg length discrepancy (SLLD) and dynamic leg length discrepancy (DLLD) in total hip arthroplasty patients. We also investigated the correlation between various methods of static leg length discrepancy measurement. Methods: Static leg length was measured by three methods: tape measure from anterior superior iliac spine to medial malleolus, inclinometer (spirit level) measured with the sacrum for flexion of lumbar spine with the knees extended, ortho-roentgenogram. Participants were assessed for dynamic leg length discrepancy during walking using an inertial measurement unit (IMU). The IMU consisted of three tri-axially arranged accelerometers applied to the lumbar region of the spine in order to measure the centre of mass excursion in three dimensions. Data are recorded at 200 Hz for a maximum of 20 seconds. Each participant completed nine gait tests: four walks with modified shoe lifts applied in random order to the operative or non-operative sides of the THA group or alternate sides on controls, and a normal walk with no lift applied to either side. Lift heights were 0.2 cm, 1.2 cm, 2.2 cm, and 3.2 cm Results: Data from the inertial measurement unit was plotted in two dimensions to illustrate dynamic leg length discrepancy. A control with no lift and basically equal leg lengths showing a nice shift and equal heights of the Anterior Superior Iliac Crest (ASIS). A patient with a 1.2 cm lift on the right side, indicates a dynamic leg length discrepancy of 1 cm. A patient with 3.2 cm of lift on the right side, measures a 2.75 cm leg length discrepancy dynamically. Conclusion: Dynamic leg length discrepancy of less than one centimeter is rarely detected by the patient and is quite easily adapted to with a small lift in the other shoe of 80% of the inequality. Dynamic leg length discrepancy of greater than one centimeter (static leg length discrepancy greater than 1.2 cm) usually provides a patient with enough discrepancy that a limp is perceptible. This study emphasizes the need to do careful leg length measurements when performing total hip arthroplasty

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Research Archives→Same topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty→French-language works237,207→