Clinical failure analysis of contemporary ceramic-on-ceramic total hip replacements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigates the performance of ceramic-on-ceramic total hip replacements by combining a retrieval analysis with a survivorship analysis to elucidate mechanisms that led to clinical failure. Semiquantitative surface damage assessment, contact profilometry, contour measurements, and scanning electron microscopy were performed to characterize the types and quantify the extent of surface damage on the retrieved ceramic components. The implantation period was positively correlated with both damage scores of the femoral heads (R = 0.573, p < 0.001) and the acetabular cups (R = 0.592, p < 0.001). Increased maximal out-of-roundness values of the femoral heads correlated with both increased metal transfer damage score (R = 0.384, p = 0.023) and increased stripe damage score (R = 0.729, p ≤ 0.001) of the acetabular liners. The damage rate (damage score/year) for both the retrieved heads and acetabular liners was at least 2.2-fold greater at inclination angles of >45° than the damage rate at inclination angles of ≤45°. For the retrieved femoral heads only, the linear wear rate of 25.5 ± 21.3 µm/year at inclination angles of >45° was 6-fold greater than the linear wear rate of 4.2 ± 2.3 µm/year at inclination angles of ≤45°. Metal transfer on the ceramic bearing surface could possibly contribute to fluid-film starvation and, in combination with an increased inclination angle, may facilitate an adhesive wear mechanism associated with stripe surface damage. At our institution, the clinical survivorship of ceramic-on-ceramic total hip replacements was 98.9% (a total of 9 out of 815 patients were revised within 10 years after total hip arthroplasty) with revision as the end point, suggesting their safe use in younger patients.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".