The role of implant alignment on stability and particles on periprosthetic osteolysis—A rabbit model of implant failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study objective was to determine the tissue response to polyethylene and/or titanium particles and the role that these play in peri-prosthetic osteolysis in a rabbit model of implant failure. Twenty-two mature rabbits were used. Unilateral tibial arthroplasty was performed on all of them. The test animals received implants that were intentionally rotationally unstable with reference to the host tibia in order to create a model of failure. The test rabbits were divided into three groups. Group 1 consisted of seven rabbits in which only the carrier was implanted. Group 2 consisted of seven rabbits that received only polyethylene particles suspended in the carrier. Group 3 consisted of eight rabbits that received a mixture of polyethylene and titanium alloy particles suspended in the carrier. The rabbits were sacrificed at 6 months post surgery. The entire knee, together with the immediately surrounding soft tissue, was retrieved. The position of the implant in each rabbit was assessed with reference to its alignment to the tibia. The number of inflammatory, foreign-body reactive cells, the presence of neovascularization, edema, and necrosis in the periprosthetic zones were recorded and assessed in a qualitative and semiquantitative manner. Quantitative histomorphometry was used to determine the proportion of implant surface that interfaced with osseous or fibrous tissue. Also assessed was the thickness and maturity of the fibrous tissue and the endosteal remodeling activity in the peri-implant bone counting both osteoclastic and osteoblastic activity. The results showed that implanted particles and misalignment of the implants combined to produce peri-prosthetic bone resorption. Bone resorption was found to be proportional to the degree of misalignment. The animals that received combined polyethylene/titanium particles had a greater degree of foreign-body and inflammatory response with osteolysis than the other groups. The combination of bio-material particles (polyethylene and titanium alloy) produced a greater degree of bone resorption than the single biomaterial particles (polyethylene). The amount of bone resorption surrounding the implant was directly proportional to the degree of misalignment of the implant.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".