“Intra-operative assessment of leg length discrepancy with anterior approach total hip replacement: a comparison between standard table, position table with and without intra-operative radiographs”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Post-operative LLD is a major concern after THA. The anterior approach on a standard table allows surgeons for a direct control of the leg length. Intra-operative radiography (IR) helps in assessment of hip biomechanics and anatomic parameters. The aim of this study is to evaluate the LLD after THA through anterior approach with or without a position table and with or without the use of intra-operative radiographs. The hypothesis is that leg length may be better control when IR and a standard table are used. METHODS: This is a single-centre retrospective comparative cohort study of three matched groups of 80 patients receiving anterior approach THA with three different techniques (Group A: positioning table with IR; Group B: standard table with IR; Group C: standard table without IR). Pre-operative and post-operative LLD was calculated. Age, sex, BMI, acetabular cup and femoral stem size, operative time, and blood loss were recorded. RESULTS: In Group A, 15 patients (19%) had a LLD greater than 5 mm, and two patients (2,5%) had a LLD greater than 10 mm. In Group B, 20 patients (25%) had a LLD greater than 5 mm, and two patients (2,5%) had a LLD greater than 10 mm. In Group C, 16 patients (20%) had a LLD greater than 5 mm, and three patients (3,7%) had a LLD greater than 10 mm. No statistically significant differences were found for LLD > 5 mm, for LLD > 10 mm, nor for the mean LLD between the three groups (p > 0.05). Mean operative time was statistically longer in Group B (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Neither the use of a standard/positioning table neither the use of IR seemed to be superior in restoring leg length after anterior approach THA. Together with the contradictory results in literature, findings of the current study indicate that no technique is clearly superior to one other and surgeons' experience may play the most relevant role.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".