A biomechanical comparison of four different cementless press-fit stems used in revision surgery for total knee replacements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few biomechanical studies exist on femoral cementless press-fit stems for revision total knee replacement (TKR) surgeries. The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical quality of the femur-stem interface for a series of commercially available press-fit stems, because this interface may be a 'weak link' which could fail earlier than the femur-TKR bond itself. Also, the femur-stem interface may become particularly critical if distal femur bone degeneration, which may necessitate or follow revision TKR, ever weakens the femur-TKR bond itself. The authors implanted five synthetic femurs each with a Sigma Short Stem (SSS), Sigma Long Stem (SLS), Genesis II Short Stem (GSS), or Genesis II Long Stem (GLS). Axial stiffness, lateral stiffness, 'offset load' torsional stiffness, and 'offset load' torsional strength were measured with a mechanical testing system using displacement control. Axial (range = 1047-1461 N/mm, p = 0.106), lateral (range = 415-462 N/mm, p = 0.297), and torsional (range = 115-139 N/mm, p > 0.055) stiffnesses were not different between groups. The SSS had higher torsional strength (863 N) than the other stems (range = 167-197 N, p < 0.001). Torsional failure occurred by femoral 'spin' around the stem's long axis. There was poor linear correlation between the femur-stem interface area versus axial stiffness (R = 0.38) and torsional stiffness (R = 0.38), and there was a moderate linear correlation versus torsional strength (R = 0.55). Yet, there was a high inverse linear correlation between interfacial surface area versus lateral stiffness (R = 0.79), although this did not result in a statistical difference between stem groups (p = 0.297). These press-fit stems provide equivalent stability, except that the SSS has greater torsional strength.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".