High Incidence of Migration with Poor Initial Fixation of the Accolade® Stem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous cementless femoral stem design variations are in clinical use. Because initial implant instability and micromotion are associated with aseptic loosening of the femoral component, migration analysis provides an early assessment of implant survivorship. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined the (1) migration pattern of the Accolade cementless femoral stem; (2) clinical factors predisposing to stem migration; (3) self-reported patient outcomes; and (4) our current rate of aseptic stem loosening. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 81 femoral stems for aseptic migration using Ein-Bild-Roentgen-Analyse-femoral component analysis. Postoperatively, patients completed the WOMAC and SF-12 questionnaires. We assessed radiographic factors potentially associated with subsidence: indices of bone shape and quality, canal fill of the implant, and radiographic signs of loosening. Minimum followup was 24 months (mean, 29 months; range, 24-48 months). RESULTS: The average subsidence at 24 months was 1.3 mm (range, 0-1.5 mm). In the first 2 years, 36% of stems subsided more than 1.5 mm. Large stem size was associated with subsidence. Radiolucent lines (> 1.5 mm in three zones) were present in 10% of stems and associated with lower questionnaire scores. The 5-year survivorship for aseptic loosening of the 367 stems was 97% with revision as end point and 95% for radiographic failure. CONCLUSIONS: The high incidence of migration and stems with radiographic failure raises concerns about patient clinical function and long-term survivorship of this stem design. This migration pattern may be due to poor initial stability with a subsequent lack of osseointegration. Our results differ from radiographic findings and clinical durability of other similar cementless stem designs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".