Is Removal of Subchondral Bone Plate Advantageous in Cemented Cup Fixation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: There is uncertainty regarding whether and how the subchondral bone plate should be treated during acetabular preparation for cemented cup fixation in a total hip arthroplasty. We hypothesized that removing the bone plate would improve the cement-bone interface without jeopardizing the initial cup stability, and therefore, be advantageous to long-term cup survival. We randomized 50 patients with primary osteoarthritis into two groups, one for removal and one for retention of the subchondral bone plate. The patients were evaluated during 2 years followup using repeated radiostereometric examinations, analyses of radiolucent lines, and clinical followups. Patient scoring was done using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the Short Form-12, and the Harris hip score. Removal of the subchondral bone plate resulted in a superior cement-bone interface with less development of radiolucent lines. The radiostereometry results showed small migrations in both groups. We found no differences in cup stability between groups, although a difference was observed in rotational behavior with the removal group stabilizing in a slightly vertical position whereas the retention group showed slight but progressive rotation into a more horizontal position. No differences were found during clinical followups. Removing the subchondral bone plate, where possible, improves the cement-bone interface without jeopardizing the stability, implying better long-term cup survival. However, it is a more demanding surgical technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level I (high quality randomized controlled trial with statistically significant difference or no statistically significant difference but narrow confidence intervals). 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".