MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2559095568

INCREASED ASEPTIC LOOSENING IN NON-LARGE-HEAD METAL-ON-METAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY

2018· article· en· W2559095568 on OpenAlexaff
Colin D. Burnell, Bryan Flynn, Trevor C. Gascoyne, Kevin D. Stockwell, Thomas R. Turgeon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsManitoba Beekeepers' Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantFemoral headSurgeryAseptic processingOdds ratioIncidence (geometry)DentistryInternal medicineMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-large head Metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements were seen as a solution to concerns about implant wear in younger patients. Mid-term loosening of once well-fixed hydroxyapatite (HA) coated femoral stems was recently observed in select MoM patients upon revision surgery. Accordingly, an implant retrieval study was undertaken to examine the incidence of aseptic loosening of in HA-coated femoral stems with MoM, ceramic on ceramic (CoC) and metal on polyethylene (MoP) bearing couples. A single-centre implant retrieval lab reviewed 44 hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated titanium wedge taper stems of the same design retrieved over a period of 9 years. Ten were MoM articulations, 23 MoP and 11 CoC. Head sizes ranged from 28 to 40 with only four 40mm heads, all of which were MoM. Reason for revision, duration of implantation, femoral head size, patient age and body mass index was recorded for each retrieval. Goldberg corrosion scores were determined for the taper surfaces of each retrieval, with ‘0’ indicating no corrosion and ‘3’ indicating severe corrosion. Logistic regression analysis, Wilcoxan Rank Sum and Fischer9s exact test were used for statistical analysis. Aseptic loosening was the listed reason for revision in 18 of 44 cases. MoM bearing was associated with increased probability of aseptic loosening (Odds ratio 7.1 (95%CI 1.1–47.0) p=0.042). Severity of corrosion was also associated with aseptic loosening (Odds ratio 2.75 (95%CI 1.1–6.6) p=0.02). Head size and patient age had no correlation. Median time to revision of implants for aseptic loosening was 4.5 years (range: 4.2–7.0 years) for MoM versus 1.4 years (range: 0.3–3.0) for other bearing couples (p=0.004). Aseptic loosening was categorised as early ( 2 years). No MoM hips were revised for aseptic loosening in the first 2 years while 8 of the 11 mid-term revisions had MoM articulations (p=0.004). Taper corrosion was more severe in mid-term aseptic loosing cases (p=0.049). MoM HA-coated hip replacements appear to be associated with increased mid-term aseptic loosening compared to other bearing couples. Patients with MoM HA-coated hip replacements should be monitored regularly beyond the initial 1 to 2 years following surgery. Future analyses will examine the presence and progression of femoral radiolucency prior to revision surgery to determine an approximate timeline of stem loosening in this patient cohort. This research highlights the importance of implant retrieval programs to assess post-revision implant characteristics for early identification of possible device issues.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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