MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2306629865 · doi:10.1016/j.bj.2016.01.005

No benefit on functional outcomes and dislocation rates by increasing head size to 36 mm in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty

2015· article· en· W2306629865 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACFemoral headTotal hip arthroplastyRange of motionArthroplastyHarris Hip ScoreSurgeryOsteoarthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ceramic-on-ceramic (COC) total hip arthroplasty (THA) has gained popularity since improvements in wear characteristics and longevity. Whether large ceramic femoral heads (≥36 mm) have increased postoperative range of motion (ROM) and a lower dislocation rate is not clear. This study aimed to compare functional outcomes and early complications between large-head (≥36 mm) and smaller-head (≤32 mm) COC prostheses with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. METHODS: A total of 95 consecutive uncemented COC THAs were performed in 90 patients between January 2012 and July 2013. Of these, 49 patients (smaller-head group) received third generation and 41 patients (large-head group) received fourth generation COC prostheses. Harris hip score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis index (WOMAC), and ROM of the hip pre- and post-operatively were compared, as well as the presence of early complications. RESULTS: Postoperative HHSs (88.4 vs. 89.3, p = 0.34) and WOMAC scores (12.0 vs. 11.0, p = 0.111) were not different between the groups. Postoperative flexion ROM was lower in the smaller-head group (98.8° vs. 106.1°, p < 0.001), but there were no differences in extension, abduction, adduction, internal rotation, and external rotation. One patient in each group reported a grinding noise. There was one dislocation (1.9%) in the smaller-head group, and none in the large-head group (p = 0.371). No infections or loosening of the components occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Large-head COC articulation provided better flexion, but functional outcomes and early complications are similar to the smaller-head COC.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it