The Twenty to Twenty-five-Year Outcomes of the Harris Design-2 Matte-Finished Cemented Total Hip Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We previously reported the ten to fifteen-year results for 195 matte-finished Harris Design-2 total hip replacements that had been inserted with cement by two surgeons in 166 patients with osteoarthritis. The purpose of the present report is to update that study and report the twenty to twenty-five-year outcomes. The patients were followed prospectively on the basis of clinical assessment with use of the Harris hip score and radiographic analysis. One hundred and forty-nine patients (90%) had a functioning implant at the time of death or, if living, at twenty to twenty-five years of follow-up. A total of ten patients (ten hips; 5%) underwent a revision because of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (two hips; 1%), the femoral component (four hips; 2%), or both components (four hips; 2%). At twenty-five years, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a survival rate of 83% +/- 6% with revision for any reason as the end point. The survival rate was 86% +/- 6% for the femoral component and 93% +/- 3% for the acetabular component with aseptic loosening as the end point. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".