Mid-term survivorship and clinical outcomes of cobalt-chrome and oxidized zirconium on highly crosslinked polyethylene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The choice of bearing articulation for total hip arthroplasty in younger patients is amenable to debate. We compared mid-term patient-reported outcomes and survivorship across 2 different bearing articulations in a young patient cohort. METHODS: We reviewed patients with cobalt-chrome or oxidized zirconium on highly crosslinked polyethylene who were followed prospectively between 2004 and 2012. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine predicted cumulative survivorship at 5 years with all-cause and aseptic revisions as the outcome. We compared patient-reported outcomes, including the Harris hip score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Short-form 12 (SF-12) scores. RESULTS: A total of 622 patients were followed during the study period. Mean follow-up was 8.2 (range 2.0-10.6) years for cobalt-chrome and 7.8 (range 2.1-10.7) years for oxidized zirconium. Mean age was 54.9 ± 10.6 years for cobalt-chrome and 54.8 ± 10.7 years for oxidized zirconium. Implant survivorship was 96.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94.9%-97.1%) for cobalt-chrome and 98.7% (95% CI 98.0%-99.4%) for oxidized zirconium on highly crosslinked polyethylene for all-cause revisions, and 97.2% (95% CI 96.2%-98.2%) for cobalt-chrome and 99.0% (95% CI 98.4%-99.6%) for oxidized zirconium for aseptic revisions. An age-, sex- and diagnosis-matched comparison of the HHS, WOMAC and SF-12 scores demonstrated no significant changes in clinical outcomes across the groups. CONCLUSION: Both bearing surface couples demonstrated excellent mid-term survivorship and outcomes in young patient cohorts. Future analyses on wear and costs are warranted to elicit differences between the groups at long-term follow-up.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".