First experiences with the Fitmore® hip stem: Early results of the 16-month monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aim: Fitmore® hip stem belongs to the group of short stem prostheses with the metaphysar stabilization, with its shape and form that protects the bone mass in the greater trochanter region and the distal part of the femur. The aim of this paper was to present the early postoperative results in patients with implanted Fitmore® hip stem and point out some of the advantages. Methods: A series of 10 patients with implanted Fitmore® hip stem, was included in this study. The average age of the patients was 54.5 (48–65) years. There were 5 women and 5 men. The total monitoring time was 16 months. To rate the condition of the hip joint we used The Western Ontario and Mc Master Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score. We also monitored the degree of hip pain, hip flexion, heterotopic ossification and indentation in the stem of the prosthesis. Results: After 12 months of monitoring 9 (90%) of the patients had no pain in the thigh region, and only 1 (10%) experienced mild pain. The hip flexion rose from the average 89° to postoperative 114°. WOMAC score rose as well, from 49 to 94 average points. Indentation in the stem was registered 3 months after the operation in 2 (20%) of the patients – in one of the patients the indentation was 3 mm and in the other patient 5 mm. After the 16-month monitoring, the results were excellent. The monitoring period was short though it should be continued and the results should be presented after 5 and then after 10 years. Conclusion: Early results of the implantation Fitmore stem showed good bone ingrowth with excellent functional result.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".