Total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 21 years: a minimum, 10-year follow-up.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the function, radiographic results and implant survival in patients younger than 21 years at the time of operation and with at least a 10-year follow-up, we reviewed the course of young adults who underwent total hip arthroplasty at McGill University Health Centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve patients (16 hips) met the criteria for inclusion in this study. They ranged in age from 10-20 years (median 16.5 yr). One patient (1 hip) died 5 years after the index surgery and was excluded from the study. Functional results were measured by the Harris hip score, and radiographs of surviving implants were assessed for radiolucencies, osteolysis and eccentric polyethylene wear. RESULTS: Eleven arthroplasties were cementless, 2 were hybrid and 2 were cemented. At follow-up ranging from 10 to 25 years (mean 13.6 yr), the Harris hip score ranged from 34.2-97.2 (mean 64.5). Four (26%) acetabular components were revised and (at the time of writing) 1 required revision. Only 1 (7%) femoral stem was revised. Radiographically, there was a high prevalence of eccentric polyethylene wear, but none of the surviving implants were found to be loose. Overall, 67% (10 of 15) of the total hip arthroplasties continued to function well at a mean of 13.6 years postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Total hip arthroplasty remains a reasonable option in adolescence and early adulthood in selected patients with severe debility from multiple joint disease. Polyethylene wear is a particularly significant problem in this group of active young people.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".