Stepwise Total Hip Arthroplasty with Lateral and Posterolateral Approaches: Intraoperative Imaging, Fixation Strategy, and Early Functional Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a widely utilized and effective intervention for patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis. Although multiple surgical approaches and fixation techniques are available, their application in non-tertiary clinical settings is less frequently documented. This study primarily aims to provide an educational overview of stepwise THA procedures using intraoperative visual documentation, with a secondary, exploratory assessment of postoperative outcomes related to surgical approach and fixation strategy. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted at Arad Clinical Emergency County Hospital between March 2023 and March 2024, involving 23 patients undergoing primary THA. Patients received either cemented or uncemented femoral components based on intraoperative bone quality. Procedures were documented using stepwise intraoperative photographs and postoperative radiographs. Recovery was assessed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at both six weeks and six months postoperatively. RESULTS: Both lateral (Hardinge) and posterolateral approaches provided adequate exposure with reproducible results. Cemented implants allowed for immediate full weight-bearing and were preferred in elderly patients with poor bone quality, while uncemented components were used in younger patients with good bone density, requiring a delayed weight-bearing protocol. Functional scores improved in both groups between six weeks and six months. At six weeks, the mean HHS was 87.6 ± 6.2 and WOMAC 18.3 ± 4.8; by six months, these improved to 91.8 ± 5.1 and 12.7 ± 3.9, respectively. Cemented fixation demonstrated slightly better outcomes at both time points; however, intergroup differences remained below the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored surgical approaches and fixation strategies, guided by intraoperative assessment, result in favorable short- and mid-term recovery profiles in THA. The integration of intraoperative visual documentation and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) enhances procedural transparency while supporting evidence-based decision-making and surgical training.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".