The biomechanical effect of anteversion and modular neck offset on stress shielding for short-stem versus conventional long-stem hip implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short-stem hip implants are increasingly common since they preserve host bone stock and presumably reduce stress shielding by improving load distribution in the proximal femur. Stress shielding may lead to decreased bone density, implant loosening, and fracture. However, few biomechanical studies have examined short-stem hip implants. The purpose of this study was to compare short-stem vs. standard length stemmed implants for stress shielding effects due to anteversion-retroversion, anterior-posterior position, and modular neck offset. Twelve artificial femurs were implanted with either a short-stem modular-neck implant or a conventional length monolithic implant in 0° or 15° of anteversion. Three modular neck options were tested in the short-stem implants. Three control femurs remained intact. Femurs were mounted in adduction and subjected to axial loading. Strain gauge values were collected to validate a Finite Element (FE) model, which was used to simulate the full range of physiologically possible anteversion and anterior-posterior combinations (n = 25 combinations per implant). Calcar stress was compared between implants and across each implant's range of anteversion using one and two-way ANOVA. Stress shielding was defined as the overall change in stress compared to an intact femur. The FE model compared well with experimental strains (intact: slope = 0.898, R = 0.943; short-stem: slope = 0.731, R = 0.948; standard-stem: slope = 0.743, R = 0.859); correction factors were used to adjust slopes to unity. No implant anteversion showed significant reduction in stress shielding (α = 0.05, p > 0.05). Stress shielding was significantly higher in the standard-stem implant (63% change from intact femur, p < 0.001) than in short-stem implants (29-39% change, p < 0.001). Short-stem implants reduce stress shielding compared to standard length stemmed implants, while implant anteversion and anterior-posterior position had no effect. Therefore, short-stem implants have a greater likelihood of maintaining calcar bone strength in the long term.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".