The impact of proximal femoral morphology on failure strength with a mid-head resection short-stem hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mid-head resection short-stem hip arthroplasty is a conservative alternative to conventional total hip replacement and addresses proximal fixation challenges in patients not suitable for hip resurfacing. It is unclear whether proximal femoral morphology impacts the ultimate failure load of mid-head resection implanted femurs, thus the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of native neck-shaft angle (NSA) and coronal implant alignment on proximal femoral strength. In total, 36 synthetic femurs with two different proximal femoral morphologies were utilized in this study. Of them, 18 femurs with a varus NSA of 120° and 18 femurs with a valgus NSA of 135° were each implanted with a mid-head resection prosthesis. Femurs within the two different femoral morphology groups were divided into three equal coronal implant alignment groups: 10° valgus, 10° varus or neutral alignment. Prepared femurs were tested for stiffness and to failure in axial compression. There was no significant difference in stiffness nor failure load between femurs implanted with valgus-, varus- or neutrally aligned implants in femurs with a NSA of 120° (p = 0.396, p = 0.111, respectively). Femurs implanted in valgus orientation were significantly stiffer and failed at significantly higher loads than those implanted in varus alignment in femurs with a NSA of 135° (p = 0.001, p = 0.007, respectively). A mid-head resection short-stem hip arthroplasty seems less sensitive to clinically relevant variations of coronal implant alignment and may be more forgiving upon implantation in some femoral morphologies, however, a relative valgus component alignment is recommended.
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 | 0.000 | 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".