MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547628110 · doi:10.1016/j.jor.2016.10.023

601 metal-on-metal total hip replacements with 36 mm heads a 5 minimum year follow up: Levels of ARMD remain low despite a comprehensive screening program

2016· article· en· W2547628110 on OpenAlexaff
Amit Atrey, Alister Hart, Nasir Hussain, Jonathon Waite, A. Shepherd, Steve Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyImplantTotal hip replacement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We conducted a retrospective study to assess the clinical outcome, failure rate, and reason for failure of a large consecutive series of 36 mm MoM Corail/Pinnacle total hip replacements (THRs). METHODS: Between 2006 and 2011, 601 consecutive 36 mm MoM THRs were performed (585 patients). Patients were followed according to the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) guidelines. All patients were accounted for and 469 patients (78%) were clinically and radiographically assessed. 328 females and 141 males with a median age of 73 (range 36-94 years) and a median follow up of 7.2 years (range 5.2-9.7 years) were followed. Clinical data included blood cobalt and chromium, Oxford Hip Score (OHS), plain radiograph, ultrasound of hip and intra-operative findings in those patients who had revision surgery. RESULTS: 56 patients died of causes unrelated to their hip replacement. The mean survivorship of the implant was 92.8% (range 91.6-94%, 95% CI) at a median time to follow up of 84 months (62-113 months). The functional outcome was good with a median OHS of 38 out of 48 (23-44). The dislocation rate was 0.99%, with all these 6 cases requiring revision. 476 patients had blood tests. 100 patients (21%) had elevated levels of either cobalt above MHRA guidelines of 7 parts per billion (120 and 135 nmol/L respectively for cobalt and chromium). Cobalt was elevated independently of chromium in 75% of the cases (but never vice versa). The mean cup inclination angle was 42°. Each incremental stem size increase resulted in a decrease in cobalt by 11 nmol/L. The most common reason for revision was adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) (12 cases). CONCLUSION: This paper is the largest and longest follow up of 36 mm MoM THRs. Using the MHRA guidelines for follow up, the revision rates of this cohort has remained low compared to other studies, but unacceptably higher than that of other bearing surfaces. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of OrthopaedicsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207