MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017657584 · doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3811-7

Modular Tapered Implants for Severe Femoral Bone Loss in THA: Reliable Osseointegration but Frequent Complications

2014· article· en· W2017657584 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas M. Brown, Matthew W. Tetreault, Cara A. Cipriano, Craig J. Della Valle, Wayne G. Paprosky, Scott M. Sporer

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsseointegrationProsthesis designFemoral boneSurgeryOrthopedic surgerySports medicineDentistryImplantFemurProsthesisPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Modular tapered stems have been suggested as the optimal implants for patients with severe femoral bone loss (Paprosky Type IIIB and IV) undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, there are few data describing survivorship and hip scores associated with this treatment. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: At minimum 2 years, we sought to determine the (1) survivorship of these implants; (2) radiographic evidence of osseointegration; and (3) the Harris hip scores of patients revised with a modular tapered stem for severe femoral bone loss including the complications associated with their use. METHODS: Between 1999 and 2010, we performed 1124 femoral revisions; of those, 135 (12%) were performed using a modular tapered stem. General indications for use of this device included bone loss, poor quality bone, leg length discrepancy, difficulty adjusting version, proximal femoral remodeling, and ectatic medullary canals in the setting of revision THA. This report reviewed 70 of those that were performed in Type IIIB and IV femurs. Of those 70 patients, 11 had died and one was lost before 2-year followup; the remaining 58 (83%, 33 with a Type IIIB femur and 25 with a Type IV femur) were followed for a minimum of 24 months (average, 67 months; range, 24-151 months). Survivorship free from revision, radiographic analysis for signs of subsidence or stem loosening, and Harris hip scores were tallied. RESULTS: One patient underwent stem revision for early subsidence followed by failure of ingrowth for a survivorship free from repeat revision of 98% (57 of 58 patients). Five other stems (for a total of six [10%]) subsided early but nonetheless achieved radiographic signs of ingrowth and were not revised again. All other stems demonstrated osseointegration without subsidence and remained radiographically well fixed. In patients with surviving implants, the mean Harris hip score improved from 34 (range, 11-49) preoperatively to 74 (range, 14-100; p<0.001) postoperatively. Overall, 15 of 58 patients (26%) experienced a complication, of whom 10 (17%) underwent reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: We found that modular tapered stems resulted in 98% survivorship at a mean of 67 months in patients with Type IIIB and IV femurs undergoing femoral revision, although the overall complication rate in this complex subset of patients is high. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 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

Citations49
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207