No benefit on functional outcomes and dislocation rates by increasing head size to 36 mm in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".