[Intermediate outcomes of alumina-on-alumina bearing total hip arthroplasty].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the intermediate outcomes of third-generation alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: A consecutive series of 165 primary alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasties were performed in 135 patients. Three patients died and 13 patients lost follow-up so that a total of 119 patients (146 hips) were available for study. The mean patient age was 53.4 ± 11.0 years old (range: 26 - 79). Hydroxyapatite. (HA)-coated press-fit acetabular cups were used in all cases. At femoral side, 123 cases were implanted with HA-coated uncemented stems and 23 cases implanted with high polished double taped cemented stems. All patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically after a minimal follow-up duration of 60 months. RESULTS: The preoperative mean Harris hip score of 49.6 ± 7.9 points improved to 91.7 ± 3.0 points at the last follow-up (P < 0.05). The 5-year survival for any reason lead to revision was 96.6%. Five hips were under revision, 1 for acetabular shell loosening and migration, 1 for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fracture, 1 for fracture of pure alumina liner and 2 for infections. All other prostheses demonstrated no radiographic evidence of loosening. No periprosthetic osteolysis was found. There were 2 cases of dislocations and 2 patients presented postoperatively with "squeaking-like" hips. CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiographic outcomes after primary THA with third-generation ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces are favorable after a minimal follow-up duration of 5 years. The modified alumina-on-alumina bearing implants offer a better option for younger and active patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".