MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2463946577

Evaluation of the Micromotion as a Function of the Area Where Press-Fit Is Applied for a Cementless Hip Implant

2013· article· en· W2463946577 on OpenAlexaff
M. Reimeringer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodProsthesisMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringIsotropyInterference fitImplantHomogeneousOrthodonticsComposite materialSurgeryMedicineMathematicsOpticsStructural engineeringPhysicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Modeling the press-fit that occurs in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) cementless implants is crucial for the prediction of micromotion using finite element analysis (FEA). Some studies investigated the effect of the press-fit magnitude and found a direct influence on the micromotion [1,2]. They assumed in their model that press-fit occurs throughout the prosthesis. However [3] found using computed tomography measurement that only 43% of the stem-bone interfaces is really in contact. The aim of this study is to investigate the press-fit effect at the stem-bone interface on the implant micromotion. Methods Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed on a Profemur® TL implanted into a Sawbones®. The implant orientation was validated in a previous study [4]. All materials were defined as linear isotropic homogeneous. FEA was carried out for the static loading conditions defined by [5] simulating walking fastly. Frictional contact between the bone and the prosthesis was assumed all along the prosthesis with a coefficient μ set to 0, 63 for the plasma spray (Fig. 1a) and 0,39 for the polished surface (Fig. 1b) [6]. Firstly, FEA was performed without press-fit (Fig. 2a) and then press-fit was simulated with an interference of 0,05 mm [2] between stem and bone in specific areas: superior (Fig. 2b), intermediate (Fig. 2c), inferior (Fig. 2d), and cortical alone (Fig. 2e) and finally over the entire surface in contact with the bone. The press-fit effect at the stem-bone interface on the micromotion was investigated. Measurement of the micromotion was realised on different points located on the plasma spray surface by calculating the difference between the final displacement of the prosthesis and the final displacement of the bone. Results When press-fit is applied along the entire stem-bone interface, micromotion is lower than 10 μm. In the case when no press fit is simulated, micromotion is in the range of 11 μm and 48 μm. When press-fit is included where only cortical bone is (small areas mid-way proximal and medial part), micromotion is in the range of 17 μm and 30 μm. When the press-fit is included where inferior cancellous bone is (more distal), micromotion is between 9 μm and 38 μm. When the press-fit is included in the intermediate cancellous bone (mid-way), micromotion is between 1 μm and 47 μm. Finally, when press-fit is involved in the superior cancellous bone (more proximal) alone, micromotion is in the range of 4 μm and 12 μm. The results are shown on Fig. 3. Discussion The maximum stem-bone interface micromotions calculated in this study always remain lower than 50 μm. [7] shows that interfacial micromotion greater than 40 μm produces only partial ingrowth. This indicates that in our study, in all cases investigated the primary stability was not compromised. In general, press-fit increased the primary stability. Our results indicate that press-fit in the proximal area improves widely the primary stability of this prosthesis, especially if the implant is in direct contact with cortical and cancellous bone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.167 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→French-language works237,207→