Comparison of <scp>Tri‐Lock</scp> Bone Preservation Stem and the Conventional Standard Corail Stem in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes between the Tri-Lock Bone Preservation Stem (BPS) and the conventional standard Corail stem in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: From March 2012 to May 2014, we retrospectively reviewed 84 patients (104 hips) who received Tri-Lock (BPS) and 84 patients (115 hips) who received conventional standard Corail stem in THA. Their mean ages were 53.12 ± 2.32 years and 52.00 ± 2.11 years, respectively. The clinical outcomes were assessed by Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Harris Hip Score (HHS). The radiological outcomes were evaluated by the radiological examination. Accordingly, Intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed as well. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 48.23 ± 2.91 months in the Tri-Lock (BPS) group and 49.11 ± 2.11 months in the Corail group, respectively. The bleeding volumes in two groups were comparable (169.22 ± 58.11 mL vs 179.30 ± 59.14 mL, P = 0.003), with more bleeding volume in Corail group patients, while no statistically significance with respect to operation time was observed (65.41 ± 6.24 min vs 63.99 ± 6.33 min, P = 0.567). The rates of intraoperative fracture was 8% for the Corail group while 1% for the Tri-Lock (BPS) group (8% vs 1%, P = 0.030). At final follow-up, no statistical differences in regard to HHS, WOMAC, and Pain VAS were revealed between the two groups (P > 0.05). The rate of thigh pain was higher in Corail group than in Tri-lock (BPS) group (5% vs 0%, P = 0.043). However, incidence of stress shielding in grade 1 was higher in Tri-Lock (BPS) than in the Corail group (76% vs 23%, P < 0.01), while those in grade 2 and 3 were lower compared to the Corail stem (15% vs 28%, P < 0.01; 9% vs 16%, P = 0.008, respectively). Intriguingly, other assessments in relation to radiographic outcomes and postoperative complications were not comparable between the two groups. The Kaplan-Meier survival rate (revision surgery performed for any reason was defined as the end point) was similar between the two groups (P = 0.57), with 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 92.3%-100%) in Tri-lock (BPS) group and 97.6% (95% confidence interval, 94.6%-100%) in Corail group. CONCLUSIONS: The Tri-Lock (BPS) has similar clinic performances compared to the Corail stem. Furthermore, the Tri-lock (BPS) stem has some advantages in achieving lower incidence of thigh pain, stress shielding and intra-operative fracture. Therefore, we recommend the Tri-lock (BPS) stem as a good alternative in primary total hip arthroplasty, especially taking into account patient factors, including bone deficiency and convenience of extraction of the stem in hip revision.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 découle