MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Leg-length discrepancy in revision total hip arthroplasty

2025· article· en· W4413403858 on OpenAlexaff
Troy D. Bornes, Sebastian Braun, Christopher G. Anderson, Isaiah Selkridge, Allina Nocon, Kathleen Tam, Peter K. Sculco

Bibliographic record

VenueBone & Joint Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal hip arthroplastyOrthodonticsArthroplastyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: Leg-length discrepancy (LLD) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a source of patient dissatisfaction and morbidity. The objectives of this study were to characterize LLD following revision THA (rTHA) and evaluate the difference in LLD between navigated and non-navigated rTHA. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 202 patients treated with rTHA performed between 2017 and 2021. An a priori power analysis determined that 101 patients in each group were required. Navigated and non-navigated rTHA were compared with regard to LLD (absolute value), re-revision rate, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Results: Mean postoperative LLD was 4.3 mm (SD 4.6) in all patients. In navigated rTHA, mean postoperative LLD of 3.7 mm (SD 4.7) was lower than preoperative LLD (7.5 mm (SD 6.1); p < 0.001). In non-navigated rTHA, postoperative LLD of 4.9 mm (SD 4.3) was lower than preoperative LLD (7.8 mm (SD 6.6); p < 0.001). Postoperative LLD was significantly lower in navigated compared with non-navigated rTHA in all patients and in sub-groups with preoperative LLD < 5 mm (1.7 mm vs 3.5 mm), < 10 mm (2.8 mm vs 3.9 mm), < 15 mm (3.0 mm vs 4.1 mm), and < 20 mm (3.3 mm vs 4.7 mm), respectively (p < 0.05). Based on revision type, postoperative LLD was significantly lower in navigated rTHA compared to non-navigated rTHA in those with both-component and acetabular component-only revisions (p < 0.05). Subsequent re-revision was required in three navigated rTHAs (3%) and eight non-navigated rTHAs (8%, p = 0.121). Changes in patient-reported Hip injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement, Lower Extremity Activity Scale, and pain were not significantly different between navigated and non-navigated patients. Conclusion: Postoperative LLD was improved relative to preoperative LLD in rTHA with and without the use of navigation. Postoperative LLD was significantly lower in navigated rTHA compared with non-navigated rTHA. There was no significant difference in PROMs between groups. Based on these results, computer-assisted navigation seems to optimize leg-length correction and should be considered for use in rTHA involving the acetabular component, including both-component and acetabular component-only revisions. Of note, the present study was not designed to validate all aspects of all parameters of computer navigation; rather, it was specifically designed to assess LLDs when using navigation. Therefore, the present results only cover the topic of LLD when using navigation in comparison with manual techniques.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBone & Joint OpenSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207