No difference in migration or wear between cemented low-profile cups and standard cups : A randomized radiostereographic study of 53 patients over 3 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minor design changes may cause major changes in implant performance. Thus, as part of a stepwise introduction of a new low-profile cup, we performed a randomized trial comparing it to a well-documented standard cup. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 60 patients, stratified according to sex, weight, and age, underwent cemented total hip arthroplasty using a Lubinus SP2 stem with ceramic head and were randomized to either the new low-profile Lubinus Flanged Anti-Luxation cup (FAL) or the Lubinus Standard Eccentric cup (Standard). 7 patients were excluded and 53 (28 FAL) were evaluated at 3, 6, 12, and 36 months postoperatively. Primary outcome variables, cup migration (MTPM), and wear (total 3-dimensional femoral head penetration) were measured with radiostereometry (RSA). Clinical outcome was evaluated with the western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (Womac) and the visual analog pain score (VAS). RESULTS: We found no difference in migration between the FAL and Standard cups. There was no difference in wear between the two cups and there was no correlation between wear and migration. 3 cups (2 FAL and 1 Standard) showed continuous migration of a magnitude that indicated an increased risk of early loosening. Clinical outcome was excellent, without any difference between the 2 groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".