MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983586387

Tapered titanium cementless total hip replacements: a 10- to 13-year followup study.

2001· article· en· W1983586387 on OpenAlexaff
Robert B. Bourne, C H Rorabeck, Jeffrey J. Patterson, John Guerin

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryPeriprostheticOsteolysisAcetabulumHarris Hip ScoreFemoral headOsteoarthritisRadiographyOrthopedic surgeryImplantHip surgeryArthroplasty
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 10- to-13 year performance of 307 Mallory Head cementless tapered total hip replacements in 283 patients was assessed. Eighty-five percent of patients had a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Fifty-one percent of patients were women. The mean patient age was 64 +/- 10 years. The Hex Loc cementless acetabular component and titanium alloy femoral heads were used in each patient. At final followup, 37 (13%) patients died, 32 (10%) had revision surgery, and two (1%) were lost to followup. No femoral stem was revised for aseptic loosening, but one was revised because of sepsis and one was revised because of a periprosthetic fracture. Wear, osteolysis, and loosening were problems with the Hex Loc cementless acetabular components and 31 (10%) acetabular components required revision because of these mechanisms. The mean Harris hip score at final followup of the remaining patients was 87 +/- 14 points. Three percent of these patients had thigh pain. Radiographic assessment revealed that no femoral stem or acetabular socket was definitely or probably loose. Three-dimensional wear assessment using the Devane technique was 0.35 mm per year. The Mallory Head cementless, tapered femoral component performed well in the patients in the current study, but unfortunately, the clinical results were compromised by the use of a suboptimal cementless acetabular component, the use of polyethylene that was gamma-irradiated in air, and by the use of titanium alloy femoral heads. Future developments obviously will be in the areas of better acetabular component design, alternate polyethylene sterilization methods, and enhancements of the femoral stem in terms of offset choices, neck design, and perhaps ingrowth surface.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations120
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207