High Complication Rate After Revision of Large-head Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have indicated poor outcomes in patients having revision of hip resurfacing resulting from adverse local tissue reaction and pseudotumor. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We reviewed all patients at our institution who had revision of failed large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty to determine (1) complications including reoperations; (2) radiologic outcomes; and (3) changes in serum ions after removal of the metal bearing. METHODS: From our research database, we identified 32 hips in 30 patients. Revisions were performed through a posterior approach; 17 were performed with a titanium fiber-metal shell and 15 with a porous tantalum shell, and 29 of the 32 revisions were performed with large (36- or 40-mm) femoral heads. Clinical records were reviewed and interviews conducted in the clinic or by telephone. Nineteen hips had a pre- or intraoperative diagnosis of adverse local tissue reaction, three had deep infection, and 10 had loosening of the acetabular component. RESULTS: Major complications occurred in 12 (38%) of the 32 revisions. Nine of 32 hips (28%) sustained dislocations. Four of 17 fiber-metal acetabular components failed to ingrow; none of the porous tantalum cups failed to ingrow. Seven repeat revisions were performed in six patients: three for acetabular loosening, three for recurrent dislocation, and one for recurrent adverse local tissue reaction. The mean WOMAC pain score was 78 of 100 and the function score was 83 of 100. Metal ion levels decreased after revision in most patients. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the high rate of failure of the fiber metal cups, we have elected to use an enhanced fixation surface with a high-porosity cup for revision of these cases. We observed a high rate of dislocation despite the use of 36-mm and 40-mm heads.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".