Improved Outcome in Femoral Revision Arthroplasty with Tapered Fluted Modular Titanium Stems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many techniques have been advanced to achieve reliable femoral stem fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty. In a cross-sectional study, we compared quality of life in 220 patients with two femoral stem designs: a modular tapered and fluted titanium stem design and a cylindrical extensively coated chrome-cobalt stem with single modularity (head size and neck length alone). We matched cohorts based on age decade and gender. The minimum followup was 1 year with a median of 2 years. Subjective outcome assessment and patient satisfaction were measured using the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index, the Oxford Hip Score, the SF-12, and the Arthroplasty Satisfaction Scale. At followup, all quality of life measures favored the tapered titanium stem. WOMAC pain, function, and overall scores all were higher in this group. The Oxford Hip Score and the Satisfaction score reflected a greater difference in outcome between the two stem designs. We presume reduced stiffness of the titanium stem, coupled with the intraoperative modularity, resulted in the improved patient outcomes observed in this study.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".