Contemporary Total Hip Arthroplasty with and without Cement in Patients with Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We previously evaluated ninety-eight consecutive patients (148 hips) at mean of 9.3 years after total hip arthroplasty; the mean age at the time of the index surgical procedure was 47.3 years. Fifty patients (100 hips) had simultaneous bilateral arthroplasty with a cemented stem in one hip and a cementless stem in the contralateral hip. Forty-eight patients (forty-eight hips) had unilateral hip arthroplasty with a cementless stem. All patients had a cementless acetabular component. In our first report, we found no difference in clinical results, as measured with the Harris hip score and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), between the cementless and cemented stems. One hip (2%) in the hybrid group (a cementless cup and a cemented stem) had revision because of infection and two hips (2%) in the fully cementless group had revision of the femoral component because of a periprosthetic fracture. Between the time of follow-up in that study (at a mean of 9.3 years) and the time of follow-up in the present study (at a mean of 17.3 years), twenty-two revisions of acetabular components were performed, with eight in the hybrid group and fourteen in the fully cementless group. There was no difference in clinical results, as measured with the Harris hip score and the WOMAC, between the hybrid and fully cementless groups. At the time of the present review, forty (83%) of forty-eight acetabular components in the hybrid group and eighty (85%) of ninety-four acetabular components in the fully cementless group were intact. Most of the femoral components (98%) in both groups were intact. Wear and periacetabular osteolysis were the causes of failure in the hips requiring revision.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".