Bikini versus Traditional Incision in DAA THA: Patient Satisfaction, Surgeon Observation, and LFCN Damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The bikini incision (BI) used in direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (DAA THA) theoretically improves scar aesthetics by utilizing the inguinal crease; however, current literature suggests its transverse orientation increases the risk of injury to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN). This study examines (1) patient and surgeon satisfaction with scar appearance and (2) differences in post-operative LFCN sensation between the vertical, traditional incision (TI) and the BI. Questions/Purposes: In this pilot study, the following questions were investigated: (1) Do BI patients experience increased scar satisfaction compared to TI patients? (2) Does the surgeon report greater satisfaction with BI scars compared to TI scars? (3) Do BI patients have a reduced incidence of LFCN sensory disturbance compared to TI patients?. Patients and Methods: Fifty-five patients (32 TI and 23 BI), at least 6 months post-DAA THA, were recruited from a high-volume, fellowship-trained reconstruction surgeon. 91% of the BI group was female, compared to 50% of the TI group. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) allowed patients to describe scar appearance and complications (eg, pain and itchiness) and enabled the surgeon to assess vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, relief, pliability, and surface area. Monofilament testing at superomedial, superolateral, inferomedial, and inferolateral quadrants of the anterior thigh assessed LFCN hypoesthesia. Results: POSAS analysis demonstrated that (1) BI patients were significantly more satisfied with scar appearance than TI patients (p < 0.05), and (2) the surgeon was significantly more satisfied with BI scars than TI scars (p < 0.05). (3) Monofilament testing showed significantly more LFCN impairment in the inferomedial quadrant of the TI group (p < 0.0125). Conclusion: This study demonstrates improved patient and surgeon satisfaction with the BI. Contrary to current beliefs, the BI better preserves LFCN innervation relative to the TI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".