title: Outcomes of cemented and hybrid primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: A systematic review with narrative synthesis

authors: Pearce, Amy

subjects: hip replacement

abstract: Purpose
To compare primary (implant survival and periprosthetic fracture rates, PPF) and secondary (patient reported outcome measures, PROMs) outcomes of cemented and hybrid primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis.

Methods
Four databases (PubMed®, EBSCO, ScienceDirect®, and Scopus®) were searched (1 October 2023 and 15 November 2024) for original studies comparing cemented and hybrid primary THA for osteoarthritis. survival, PPF rates, and PROMs. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Quality in Prognostic Studies or RoB 2.0 tool, critically appraised for strength of evidence using GRADE, and underwent a narrative synthesis. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023462884.

Results
Eight studies met criteria for review (n = 357,748). Risk of bias was high for two, moderate for three, and low for three studies. Quality of evidence was very low for both primary and secondary outcomes. Five studies met the criteria for the primary outcome (survival) (n = 257,756), two PPF rates (n = 29,581), and three PROMs (n = 382). Three of five studies reported hybrid survival as not significantly different to cemented, and two identified cemented as superior. The three PROMs studies reported no difference between cemented and hybrid THA. A lack of studies and comparative data made it unfeasible to determine PPF outcomes.

Conclusion
Few high-quality studies and methodological heterogeneity led to moderate to high bias and very low overall evidence certainty. Eligible studies indicated no difference in short to medium term PROMs or 10-year survival between the two fixations. Long-term studies indicated superior cemented survival outcomes. A substantial gap in long-term PROMs and PPF rates is noted.

text: Outcomes of cemented and hybrid primary total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: A systematic review with narrative synthesis Purpose
To compare primary (implant survival and periprosthetic fracture rates, PPF) and secondary (patient reported outcome measures, PROMs) outcomes of cemented and hybrid primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis.

Methods
Four databases (PubMed®, EBSCO, ScienceDirect®, and Scopus®) were searched (1 October 2023 and 15 November 2024) for original studies comparing cemented and hybrid primary THA for osteoarthritis. survival, PPF rates, and PROMs. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Quality in Prognostic Studies or RoB 2.0 tool, critically appraised for strength of evidence using GRADE, and underwent a narrative synthesis. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023462884.

Results
Eight studies met criteria for review (n = 357,748). Risk of bias was high for two, moderate for three, and low for three studies. Quality of evidence was very low for both primary and secondary outcomes. Five studies met the criteria for the primary outcome (survival) (n = 257,756), two PPF rates (n = 29,581), and three PROMs (n = 382). Three of five studies reported hybrid survival as not significantly different to cemented, and two identified cemented as superior. The three PROMs studies reported no difference between cemented and hybrid THA. A lack of studies and comparative data made it unfeasible to determine PPF outcomes.

Conclusion
Few high-quality studies and methodological heterogeneity led to moderate to high bias and very low overall evidence certainty. Eligible studies indicated no difference in short to medium term PROMs or 10-year survival between the two fixations. Long-term studies indicated superior cemented survival outcomes. A substantial gap in long-term PROMs and PPF rates is noted.

year: 2025

title: Interactive definition of single-user profiles for alerting systems

authors: Jung, Doris

subjects: computer science

abstract: This paper introduces Graphical Profile Definition Language (GPDL), a language for the definition of profiles for alerting systems, and an interactive system with which users can construct and edit GPDL-based profiles. In an alerting system profiles define potentially complex conditions about which users wish to be notified. Most current approaches to supporting profile definition, such as those that require the use of XML/XPath, are unsuitable for the general user population. Others support only a limited set of possible profiles to reduce the complexity of the interface. GPDL overcomes these limitations, supporting users to graphically express arbitrarily complex profiles involving Boolean expressions and temporal constraints. The GPDL editor provides a direct manipulation environment in which profiles can be constructed in a dynamic and flexible manner.
The paper also presents the findings of a user evaluation of the GPDL language and editor. With minimal training users were able to interpret and specify profiles with high levels of accuracy and had positive subjective responses to the language and user interface. Some aspects that were not readily understood by all users, such as absolute and repetitive temporal constraints, are discussed along with suggested future work.

text: Interactive definition of single-user profiles for alerting systems This paper introduces Graphical Profile Definition Language (GPDL), a language for the definition of profiles for alerting systems, and an interactive system with which users can construct and edit GPDL-based profiles. In an alerting system profiles define potentially complex conditions about which users wish to be notified. Most current approaches to supporting profile definition, such as those that require the use of XML/XPath, are unsuitable for the general user population. Others support only a limited set of possible profiles to reduce the complexity of the interface. GPDL overcomes these limitations, supporting users to graphically express arbitrarily complex profiles involving Boolean expressions and temporal constraints. The GPDL editor provides a direct manipulation environment in which profiles can be constructed in a dynamic and flexible manner.
The paper also presents the findings of a user evaluation of the GPDL language and editor. With minimal training users were able to interpret and specify profiles with high levels of accuracy and had positive subjective responses to the language and user interface. Some aspects that were not readily understood by all users, such as absolute and repetitive temporal constraints, are discussed along with suggested future work.

year: 2010

title: Te Kāuta

authors: Roa, Raukura

subjects: Kōrero paki

abstract: He rite tonu tā mātou hokihoki ki te take o Pirongia maunga, ki te tutungi i te ahi kā i Pūrekireki Marae. Ia wā ka hoki mātou ki tēnei o ngā marae, ka hīkaka taku ngākau, i te mea, ko taku mahi i reira, he tiaki ahi. Ao noa, pō noa, ko au te kaiwhakatutungi i te ahi o te kāuta, kei kewa. Ko te ahi o te kāuta o Pūrekireki marae, he ahi nui, he ahi kaitā. E ono tāngata pea ka uru ki te rua o te ahi nei. Nō reira, ko taku mahi i te rā, he kohi rākau i waho, he tapahi wahie, he whakamaroke anō hoki i te wahie, inā mākū i te ua. I ngā pō, kia hoki rā anō te iwi ki te moe, ko tāku, he noho ki roto i te kāuta me te tutungi ahi, kia wera tonu ai te wai mō āpōpō. Kei pōhēhē mai, he mahi mokemoke tēnei! Ehara! Ia pō, ka noho mai aku kuia ki taku taha ki te pahupahu. He nui ngā akoranga me ngā mātauranga i tuku iho mai ki a au i roto i tērā kāuta, i te taha o tērā ahi. Me uaua ka kitea tēnei momo ahi kaitā i ngā marae i ēnei rā. Kāore e whakaaengia ana e ngā ture Pākehā ngā ahi kaitā, pēnei nei te rahi, i roto i ngā kāuta o ngā marae; ‘Health and Safety Standards’ tā rātou i whakatau ai. Nō reira, i karangangia e taku pāpā tētehi hui ki te marae kia wānangahia te whakahōutanga o tō mātou kāuta. Nō taku rongotanga ake i te kaupapa o tēnei hui, ka tangi taku ngākau ki tō mātou kāuta. Nō reira, i whakarite ahau kia haere i tana taha.

text: Te Kāuta He rite tonu tā mātou hokihoki ki te take o Pirongia maunga, ki te tutungi i te ahi kā i Pūrekireki Marae. Ia wā ka hoki mātou ki tēnei o ngā marae, ka hīkaka taku ngākau, i te mea, ko taku mahi i reira, he tiaki ahi. Ao noa, pō noa, ko au te kaiwhakatutungi i te ahi o te kāuta, kei kewa. Ko te ahi o te kāuta o Pūrekireki marae, he ahi nui, he ahi kaitā. E ono tāngata pea ka uru ki te rua o te ahi nei. Nō reira, ko taku mahi i te rā, he kohi rākau i waho, he tapahi wahie, he whakamaroke anō hoki i te wahie, inā mākū i te ua. I ngā pō, kia hoki rā anō te iwi ki te moe, ko tāku, he noho ki roto i te kāuta me te tutungi ahi, kia wera tonu ai te wai mō āpōpō. Kei pōhēhē mai, he mahi mokemoke tēnei! Ehara! Ia pō, ka noho mai aku kuia ki taku taha ki te pahupahu. He nui ngā akoranga me ngā mātauranga i tuku iho mai ki a au i roto i tērā kāuta, i te taha o tērā ahi. Me uaua ka kitea tēnei momo ahi kaitā i ngā marae i ēnei rā. Kāore e whakaaengia ana e ngā ture Pākehā ngā ahi kaitā, pēnei nei te rahi, i roto i ngā kāuta o ngā marae; ‘Health and Safety Standards’ tā rātou i whakatau ai. Nō reira, i karangangia e taku pāpā tētehi hui ki te marae kia wānangahia te whakahōutanga o tō mātou kāuta. Nō taku rongotanga ake i te kaupapa o tēnei hui, ka tangi taku ngākau ki tō mātou kāuta. Nō reira, i whakarite ahau kia haere i tana taha.

year: 2016