Corrosion at the Head-Neck Taper Interface Affects the Prognosis of Hip Revision Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corrosion of the head-neck-taper interface in total hip arthroplasty has been associated with symptomatic adverse tissue local reactions, trunnion fracture, and elevated serum metal ions. The hypothesis of the study is that revisions of these cases have a worse outcome than metal-on-metal arthroplasties without corrosion and revisions of hip resurfacings; this study includes revisions performed from 2001 to 2014 in our institution. Seven patients with corrosion (73 ± 8 years), 32 patients with metal-on-metal revisions (55 ± 12 years), and 40 hip-resurfacing revisions (56 ± 12 years) were analyzed for the study. The time the implants stayed in situ was 5.7 ± 3.1, 3.7 ± 3.2, and 3.8 ± 2.7 years, respectively. The average follow-up period was 4.9 ± 3.6 years. The mean head sizes used for the corrosion group were 33 mm (28–36), 32 mm (28–44) for the metal-on-metal group and 49 mm (47–55) for the resurfacing group. Three patients of the corrosion group (43 %) had to be revised again because of recurrent dislocations and became constraint liners. Five (16 %) of the metal-on-metal group and 1 (2.5 %) of the resurfacing group required a second revision (mostly because of a planed two-stage procedure for the treatment of periprosthetic infections). All corrosion cases showed intraoperatively adverse tissue local reactions with tissue necrosis. The outcomes measured by the Harris-Hip score were also worse for the corrosion group (66 ± 13), followed by the metal-on-metal group (75 ± 19) and the resurfacing group (78 ± 19). Corrosion of the head-neck-taper interface is a rare but severe complication. Because of the high probability of recurrent dislocations postoperatively, we recommend the primary use of constrained liners for revision of corrosion cases. Further analysis, however, is needed to better understand and avoid this complication.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".