One-stage vs. two-stage bilateral total hip arthroplasty: no difference in clinical outcomes, complications and revision rates in at 5-year follow up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/objectives: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an effective treatment for end-stage hip disorders, improving pain, function, and quality of life. For bilateral hip disease, choosing between one-stage (simultaneous) and two-stage (staged) bilateral THA is critical. One-stage THA may reduce hospitalization but carries higher risks. This study evaluates whether one-stage bilateral THA is non-inferior to two-stage THA in safety and functional recovery. Methods: A retrospective study of patients undergoing bilateral THA between January 2010 and November 2019 compared one-stage (84 patients) and two-stage (63 patients) procedures. Surgeries used a postero-lateral approach with H-Max and DeltaTT implants. Outcomes included pain (VAS), function (Oxford Hip Score, EQ-5D, Forgotten Joint Score), and complications. Follow-ups were conducted at 1, 3, and 6 months, and at 5 years for both groups. Results: Both groups showed significant improvements in pain and function scores with no differences between them. Forgotten Joint Score was also comparable. Complications, including urinary infections and hematomas, were similar, and no revisions occurred in the one-stage group, compared to a 1.6% revision rate in the two-stage group. Hemoglobin decrease and transfusion rates were comparable. Conclusions: Both approaches resulted in improved symptoms and quality of life with similar complication rates. The one-stage group had fewer complications and no revisions, suggesting potential cost savings. These findings support the safety of one-stage bilateral THA, emphasizing the need for careful patient selection and surgical expertise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".