MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971635943 · doi:10.1002/jbm.b.31794

<i>In vitro</i> assessment of strength, fatigue durability, and disassembly of Ti6Al4V and CoCrMo necks in modular total hip replacements

2011· article· en· W1971635943 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Nganbe, Usman Khan, Hakim Louati, Andrew Speirs, Paul E. Beaulé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied Biomaterials · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDurabilityLoad bearingFatigue limitFatigue testingTitanium alloyModularity (biology)Materials scienceFemoral headFrettingOrthodonticsBiomedical engineeringMedicineComposite materialSurgeryAlloy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modularity in total hip replacement offers advantages with regard to biomechanical adjustments and leg lengths. Recently, modular femoral necks were introduced as an added advantage to head modularity permitting further adjustments in femoral version as well as offset and ease of revision. Currently, most necks are made of Ti6Al4V for which cases of in vivo fractures and inseparable neck-stem junctions have been reported. Therefore, we investigated CoCrMo head-Ti6Al4V stem hip replacements with necks made of CoCrMo as an alternative to Ti6Al4V. We compared the two materials with respect to (1) compressive load bearing capacity; (2) fatigue durability; and (3) component distraction. We performed in vitro fatigue-pull-off, microscopy, fatigue durability and compression investigations. The CoCrMo neck showed a load bearing capacity of 18 kN, 38% higher than 13 kN for the Ti6Al4V neck. A fatigue load of 11.2 kN for 1 million cycle failure was achieved with CoCrMo translating into nearly 1000 times longer fatigue life compared to Ti6Al4V necks. The neck-stem distraction force showed large statistical variation and was similar for both neck materials. Overall, the results suggest a superiority of CoCrMo over Ti6Al4V as neck material with regard to mechanical behavior. However, the corrosion behavior was not appropriately assessed and necessitates additional investigations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied BiomaterialsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207