Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis and clinical assessment of unipolar versus bipolar hemiarthroplasty for subcapital femur fracture: a randomized prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemiarthroplasty is a well-established treatment for displaced subcapital fracture, but controversy exists about the optimal implant type. Bipolar hemiarthroplasty has proposed advantages over unipolar hemiarthroplasty in terms of better clinical results and decreased wear of acetabular cartilage. METHODS: This study is a randomized prospective study of 51 patients (52 hips) receiving either bipolar or unipolar hemiarthroplasty for displaced subcapital fractures. The outcome measurements were clinical scores and Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) analysis to determine the rate of acetabular wear. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients completed 2-year follow-up. The RSA data demonstrated that there was slightly less acetabular wear by bipolar prostheses than by unipolar. The combined mean three-dimensional wear of the bipolar prostheses was 0.6 mm compared with 1.5 mm for the unipolar prostheses (P= 0.04). The bipolar group generally achieved higher scores in terms of the Harris Hip Score, Western Ontario and McMaster University Index of Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) questionnaire and 6-min walk test. These results were statistically significant at 3 months but not at 12 and 24 months. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that while the bipolar prosthesis performs slightly better than the unipolar in terms of acetabular cartilage wear and clinical outcomes, it remains debatable whether the benefits are worth the increased cost of the prosthesis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".