Safe Activity participation Following Elective Total hip replacement: the SAFE-T investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common elective orthopaedic surgeries performed, with increasing demand among younger individuals. Few evidence-based guidelines exist on safe activity participation following THR, including whether high-intensity sport participation is safe for individuals. The purpose of this study was to identify if increased intensity of physical activity following THR was associated with increased activity-related pain and increased revision rates. METHODS: Two groups undergoing THR were recruited: preoperative (cohort 1) and 5-7 years postsurgery (cohort 2); both followed for 5 years. Activity was self-reported through validated questionnaires and grouped into categories from 'A' (low intensity, eg, aquafit) to 'F' (high intensity, eg, tennis). The primary outcome was the presence of hip pain during activity (binary variable, Y/N), measured by the association between hip pain and intensity of activity (categories A-F). Secondary outcomes included activity duration, revision rate or a change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). RESULTS: 1098 individuals were included in this study (cohort 1: n=588, cohort 2: n=510). Regression analysis showed no significant interaction between activity intensity and hip pain across all time points. Approximately 20.6% of all activity (11.0% of participants) occurred in the highest intensity categories (E and F); these subjects showed no decrease in activity duration, worsening PROMs or increased revision rates compared with lower intensity activity groups (all p>0.05). When analysing by individual activities, certain activities (eg, snowboarding, squash, tennis and backpacking) were more correlated with hip pain (r>0.60), while others (eg, snorkelling, swimming, home weights, aquafit, cross-country skiing and sledding) were less likely to have hip pain (r<-0.60). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that higher-intensity activities do not lead to decreased activity duration, worsening patient-reported outcomes or increased revision rates following THR, although certain activities may be associated with increased pain. These findings can inform patient counselling after THR.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".