Factors Affecting Survival of Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients 50 Years or Younger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing a long-lasting total hip arthroplasty for patients younger than 50 years remains one of the greatest challenges for modern arthroplasty surgery. We retrospectively reviewed 221 patients younger than 50 years who underwent 299 uncemented total hip arthroplasties from 1983 to 2000. We assessed 5- to 15-year survival with revision as the endpoint. Femoral stem survival was 99.3% (range, 98.4-100%), 98.9% (range, 97.7-100%), and 96.8% (92.5-100%) at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Including all component designs acetabular survival was 98.7% (range, 97.4-100%), 84.6% (78.8-90.4%), and 52.5% (40.7-64.3%) at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Overall survival was 46.8% (33.5-58.1%) at 15 years. Total hip arthroplasties performed for hip dysplasia had lower 10-year and 15-year survival. Zirconium-on-polyethylene articulations had lower acetabular revision rates compared with cobalt-chrome-on-polyethylene. Sixty-nine revisions were performed, most commonly for polyethylene wear. Uncemented femoral stems resulted in 90% survival at 15 years followup in patients younger than 50 years at index operation. Contemporary bearing surfaces in association with such stems may provide long-lasting total hip arthroplasties, even in young, active patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".