Functional Recovery after Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Acetabular Defects: The Role of Personalized Physical Therapy and Assistive Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with acetabular defects represents a major challenge in modern orthopedic practice, requiring advanced therapeutic strategies both during surgery and throughout postoperative recovery. Rehabilitation in these cases demands a personalized approach that combines conventional physical therapy with modern interactive technologies capable of enhancing neuromuscular control, functional balance, and overall quality of life. This comparative study included 40 patients who underwent revision THA with acetabular defects, divided into an experimental group (n = 20), which followed an individualized physical therapy program supplemented with exercises on the Huber 360 Platform, and a control group (n = 20), which received only conventional physical therapy. Functional assessments were performed at two time points: T0 (3 months postoperatively, before rehabilitation) and T1 (6 months postoperatively, after completing the 3-month program). The evaluation tools included the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and the neuromotor analysis provided by the Huber 360 Platform. Statistical analysis revealed significant improvements in both groups, with substantially greater progress in the experimental group (p < 0.05 for most variables). Integrating the Huber 360 Platform into the rehabilitation protocol enhanced therapeutic efficiency by facilitating sensorimotor re-education, improving postural balance, and optimizing reaction time. Functional outcomes at T1—particularly HHS, SPPB, and BBS—were markedly superior in the experimental group. These findings support the hypothesis that technology-assisted rehabilitation provides measurable benefits in patients undergoing revision THA with acetabular defects, reinforcing the value of multimodal, feedback-driven approaches in contemporary orthopedic rehabilitation practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".