MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107034872

Total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 21 years: a minimum, 10-year follow-up.

2003· article· en· W2107034872 on OpenAlexaffabout
B Bessette, François Fassier, Michael Tänzer, Caleb E Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHarris Hip ScoreSurgeryOsteolysisRadiographyImplantArthroplastyProsthesis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207