Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The initial success of modern total hip arthroplasty can in large part be attributed to the reliable fixation of the femoral component with the use of acrylic bone cement. Early success with cement led to a common pathway of development in North America and the European countries. Much of the early to mid-term research concentrated on refinement of variables related to the methodology and technique of cement fixation. Scandinavian registries were subsequently able to report on improved survivorship with better cementing technique. The net effect has been standardisation towards a small number of cemented implants with good long-term outcomes representing the majority of stems implanted in Sweden, for example. In North America, during the mid-term development of THA in the late 1980's, the term “cement disease” was coined and the cemented THA saw a precipitous decline in use, now to the point where many American orthopaedic residents are completing training never having seen a cemented THA. Modern uncemented femoral components can now claim good long-term survivorship, perhaps now comparable to cemented fixation. However, this has come at a cost with respect to the premium expense applied to the implant itself as well as lineage of failed uncemented constructs. The last several years have seen a proliferation of uncemented implants, usually at a premium cost, with no demonstrated improvement in survivorship. Osteolysis has not been solved with uncemented implants and cement disease has largely been recognised as a misnomer. Long-term outcomes of cemented femoral fixation have consistently demonstrated excellent survivorship, even in the younger age group. Cemented stems allow for variable positioning of the stem to allow for better soft tissue balancing, without the need for proximal modularity. Cemented stems are more forgiving and fail less often secondary to a reduced incidence of intra-operative complications, such as peri-prosthetic fracture. Cemented stems tend to be less expensive and also have the advantage of adding antimicrobial agents into the cement. This is important in emerging markets. The next iteration of orthopaedic innovation driven by the emerging markets may indeed be back to the future. Key Points: The initial success of total hip arthroplasty was based on cemented femoral fixation. Long-term outcomes in the United States demonstrate good results for cemented femoral fixation. Despite this, cemented fixation is not frequently used in the United States. Results from multiple national joint replacement registries demonstrate superior long-term performance of cemented femoral fixation. European countries, perhaps because of the excellent results in the national registries, use cemented femoral fixation more often than not. Cemented femoral fixation is cost neutral if not less expensive and allows for the addition of antimicrobials. Cemented femoral fixation is perhaps easier to perform as the component can be potted in a range of positions as opposed to the position being dictated by the femoral anatomy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».