Influence of cementless femoral stems inserted in varus on functional outcome in primary total hip arthroplasty.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Historically, cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) femoral stems inserted in varus have yielded poor clinical results. Few studies to date have addressed the question of the effects of varus alignment on cementless stems. We conducted a retrospective review of 125 uncemented THA femoral stems implanted by a single surgeon from 1994 to 1999. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective radiographic review of 125 cementless primary THA femoral stems implanted by a single surgeon who used the Watson-Jones approach; we identified 16 stems implanted in varus, defined as >or= 5 degrees and thus analyzed the effect of varus alignment on functional outcome. We matched varus stems to a cohort of 16 nonvarus cementless stems and measured radiographic signs of loosening and subsidence, defined as > 2 mm. RESULTS: At 4 years postsurgery, there was no significant difference in range of motion or in Harris Hip Score (p > 0.5), and no cases showed evidence of radiographic loosening or subsidence (p = 0.226). CONCLUSIONS: Study results suggest there is no consequence of varus femoral alignment in the cementless stems. Although it is not recommended to implant stems in varus, there were no apparent radiographic or clinical consequences observed at up to 4 years postoperative in this small case series.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".