A preliminary biomechanical study of a novel carbon–fibre hip implant versus standard metallic hip implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total hip arthroplasty is a widespread surgical approach for treating severe osteoarthritis of the human hip. Aseptic loosening of standard metallic hip implants due to stress shielding and bone loss has motivated the development of new materials for hip prostheses. Numerically, a three-dimensional finite element (FE) model that mimicked hip implants was used to compare a new hip stem to two commercially available implants. The hip implants simulated were a novel CF/PA12 carbon-fibre polyamide-based composite hip stem, the Exeter hip stem (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA), and the Omnifit Eon (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA). A virtual axial load of 3 kN was applied to the FE model. Strain and stress distributions were computed. Experimentally, the three hip stems had their distal portions rigidly mounted and had strain gauges placed along the surface at 3 medial and 3 lateral locations. Axial loads of 3 kN were applied. Measurements of axial stiffness and strain were taken and compared to FE analysis. The overall linear correlation between FE model versus experimental strains showed reasonable results for the lines-of-best-fit for the Composite (Pearson R(2)=0.69, slope=0.82), Exeter (Pearson R(2)=0.78, slope=0.59), and Omnifit (Pearson R(2)=0.66, slope=0.45), with some divergence for the most distal strain locations. From FE analysis, the von Mises stress range for the Composite stem was much lower than that in the Omnifit and Exeter implants by 200% and 45%, respectively. The preliminary experiments showed that the Composite stem stiffness (1982 N/mm) was lower than the metallic hip stem stiffnesses (Exeter, 2460 N/mm; Omnifit, 2543 N/mm). This is the first assessment of stress, strain, and stiffness of the CF/PA12 carbon-fibre hip stem compared to standard commercially-available devices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".