2008 Otto Aufranc Award: Component Design and Technique Affect Cement Penetration in Hip Resurfacing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Either excessive or insufficient cement penetration within the femoral head after hip resurfacing influences the risk of femoral failures. However, the factors controlling cement penetration are not yet fully understood. We determined the effect of femoral component design and cementation technique on cement penetration. Six retrieved femoral heads were resurfaced for each implant (BHR, ASR, Conserve Plus, DuROM, ReCAP) using the manufacturers' recommendations for implantation. In addition, the BHR was implanted using the Conserve Plus high-viscosity cementation technique, "BHR/hvt," and vice versa for the Conserve, "Conserve/lvt." The average cement penetration was highest with BHR (65.62% +/- 15.16%) compared with ASR (12.25% +/- 5.12%), Conserve Plus(R) (19.43% +/- 5.28%), DuROM (17.73% +/- 3.96%), and ReCAP (26.09% +/- 5.20%). Cement penetration in BHR/hvt remained higher than all other implants equaling 36.7% +/- 6.6%. Greater femoral component design clearance correlated with cement mantle thickness. Femoral component design in hip resurfacing plays a major role in cement penetration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".