Prevalence of Depressive Symptoms in Patients Undergoing Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Differs Based on Mode of Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Complications following total hip arthroplasty (THA) may necessitate a revision and patients who go on to a revision THA may experience depressive symptoms. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of depressive symptoms before and after revision THA for six different failure modes. Methods Patients who underwent a THA revision with minimum 1-year follow-up at a single institution from 2008 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped by failure modes: aseptic loosening, impingement, infection, instability, metallosis, polyethylene wear, and femoral stem pain. Preoperative and postoperative Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Scores and Harris Hip Score were compared. Results Twenty-four percent of patients in the retrospective cohort review had a previous existing mental health diagnosis, with depression being the most common (18% of all patients). The prevalence of depressive symptoms differed significantly by failure mode both preoperatively ( P = .002) and postoperatively ( P = .019). Veterans RAND 12 mental component score was significant between mode of failure groups both preoperatively ( P < .001) and postoperatively ( P = .005). Function significantly improved in all groups from preoperatively to postoperatively. Patients with depressive symptoms had significantly lower physical component score with instability, aseptic loosening, stem pain, and metallosis preoperatively ( P < .001) and with instability, aseptic loosening, stem pain, and polyethylene wear postoperatively ( P = .002). Conclusions Nearly 25% of patients with failed THA had a pre-existing mental health diagnosis and depressive symptoms were the most common. Unfortunately, depressive symptoms only improve modestly with revision surgery and can adversely affect a patient's functional outcome.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".