COMPARISON OF TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY PERFORMED WITH AND WITHOUT CEMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare the fixation of a Mallory-Head total hip prosthesis with and without cement. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty patients with osteoarthritis of the hip were randomized to receive a Mallory-Head total hip prosthesis designed for insertion with cement or the same prosthesis designed for insertion without cement. Neither the patient nor the outcomes assessor was aware of the type of prosthesis. Outcomes were assessed with respect to mortality, revision arthroplasty, health-related quality of life (evaluated with the Harris hip score, Merle d'Aubign and Postel hip score, McMaster-Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire (MACTAR), Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the time trade-off technique), and the six-minute-walk test. Patients were seen at three, six, and twelve months and yearly thereafter. RESULTS: The prosthesis was inserted with cement in 124 patients and without cement in 126 patients. The mean age of the patients was sixty-four years, 48% were female, and the mean duration of follow-up was 6.3 years. There were thirteen revisions in the group that had fixation with cement and six in the group that had fixation without cement (p = 0.11), and more femoral components were revised in the group that had fixation with cement (twelve versus one; p = 0.002). All health-related quality-of-life measures improved postoperatively in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, the group that had the cemented Mallory-Head hip prostheses required more revisions of the femoral component than did the group with the cementless Mallory-Head prostheses, which was perhaps related to the titanium-alloy femoral stem. Our findings are specific to the implants evaluated in this study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".