Bone remodeling in the resurfaced femoral head: Effect of cement mantle thickness and interface characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing prostheses were re-introduced during the last 10-15 years. These prostheses have the potential to better restore normal function with limited activity restriction, being an option for younger and more active patients. Resurfacing procedures have demonstrated high failure rates in national registers [1,2]. Multiple factors may affect early and long-term HR performance. The influence of femoral cement mantle thickness and different interface characteristics between the prosthesis components on the long-term performance of resurfacing prostheses is still unknown. In the present work, a model was used to predict bone remodeling with different mantle thicknesses and interface characteristics. A very thin cement mantle (0.25mm) increased bone resorption at the superior femoral head, while greater thickness (1 or 3mm) had a lesser effect. In all cases, bone apposition was predicted around the stem and at the stem tip. Bone formation and resorption were observed clinically in good agreement with the predictions calculated in simulations. Computed results showed that 1-mm cement mantle thickness combined with a bonded bone-cement interface and a debonded implant-cement interface was an appropriate configuration. Bone remodeling results and computed equivalent strains were correlated. In conclusion, we have been able to demonstrate the importance of choosing an adequate cement mantle thickness. Additionally, computational studies should consider realistic interface characteristics between the components in order to perform simulations closer to reality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".