Migration Pattern of a Cobalt-Chrome Monoblock Acetabular Component after Metal-on-Metal HIP Resurfacing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to study the initial fixation and migration pattern of a monoblock acetabular component used for a metal on metal hip resurfacing using Einzel Bild Roentgen Analyse (EBRA). METHODS: 99 patients with a mean age of 49.6 years (range 28.5-66.3 years) of whom 14 were bilateral underwent a hip resurfacing (Conserve Plus®, MicroPort, Memphis, TN) for a total of 113 resurfacings. Acetabular component orientation was noted with 35 of the 113 components (31.0%) having a lucency >2 mm on the immediate postoperative radiograph. RESULTS: The mean follow-up for our cohort of 113 hips is 50 months (2-79 months). When examining the 2-year migration mark, 37 of the 113 hips exceeded the threshold of 0.5 mm/year with a median total migration of 1.40 mm (range 1.02-4.24). 6 resurfacings underwent revision surgery for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component at a mean time of 43.6 months. Presence of initial lucency (OR 2.29, p = 0.05) was the only significant predictor of migration over threshold at 2-years. Those that had migrated over the threshold (1.0 mm) at 2 years were at significantly greater risk of continued migration at 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: The migration pattern of this component raises concerns about long term performance, with postoperative lucencies representing a significant factor for future migration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".