Comparative Randomized Study of The Outcome of Single versus Two Stage Revision for Prosthetic Hip Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Continuous debates persist on the gold standard approach for managing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Objective: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of single-stage revision versus two-stage revision for PJI after THA. Patients and methods: 40 patients were included in this study with minimum duration of follow-up of 12 months. The patients were divided into two equal groups. Group A (n=20): Single-stage revision THA. Group B (n=20): Two-stage revision THA. Infection eradication, Harris hip score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, radiological evaluation and complications were compared between the two groups. Results: There was one case of reinfection, which occurred in group B. In group A, the mean HHS was 91.70 ± 3.79 and mean WOMAC score 9.95 ± 3.78. In group B, scores were lower with mean HHS of 88.85 ± 5.31 and mean WOMAC score 15.90 ± 7.32 and complication rates were higher. There were no significant differences in radiographic outcome between the groups. Conclusion: The single-stage revision was associated with several advantages, including shorter hospital stays, reduced duration of antibiotic therapy and superior functional outcomes as well as more efficient recovery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".