Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no mathematical relationship between the internal diameter of the femoral metaphysis and diaphysis. Unless an infinite number of monolithic stems are available with variable metaphyseal and diaphyseal diameters, which is not economically possible, even in virgin cases, the surgeon has to decide if the stem is going to fit in the metaphysis or the diaphysis. It is not possible to match both. In revision cases with a hollowed out metaphysis, the situation is much worse. As it is obviously easier to fit the diaphysis, this is what stems such as the AML and Wagner stem have done. They completely ignore the metaphysis and obtain fixation in the diaphysis. This is all well and good, but it means that the proximal femur is unloaded, like an astronaut in space. While, there will be some recovery due to removal of the toxins and local muscle pull, it will be incomplete. Furthermore, should sepsis occur, one is faced with the horror of removing a distally fixed implant. Clearly, if proximal fixation, i.e. above the level of lesser trochanter could reliably be achieved, this would be preferable in terms of proximal loading leading to bone recovery and ease of removal should it be required. The only way that proximal loading can be achieved is if the metaphyseal and diaphyseal parts of the component can be varied infinitely. This clearly can only be achieved by using a modular stem. The concern with modularity always has been fretting at the sleeve-stem locking mechanism with release of metal ions. The stem, which I have been using for the last 25 years, is the SROM stem. Fretting and ion release had never been an issue. As the components are made of a relatively soft titanium alloy, it is likely that the sleeve and the stem cold weld, thus, eliminating any movement and eliminating friction. I have a follow-up of roughly 120 revision cases with a minimum follow-up of 5 years and a maximum follow-up of 22 years. I have no loosening in easy revision cases where a primary stem was used. I have had some loosenings in extremely difficult revision situations where a long bowed stem was required, but even then, the loosening rate is less than 3%. I use this stem in primary situations, i.e. in about 80% of all the primaries I have done. This means I have done roughly 1500 cases or more. Other than some late infections, I have never, ever had any stem loosening in a simple case. Obviously, I have had loosenings in some cases, where we have been doing fancy shortening or de-rotation osteotomies, but none in simple primary cases. I would, therefore, suggest that the surgeon, if he wishes to use this stem, please try it out on some simple primary cases. The ability to vary distal and proximal internal diameters and proximal geometry makes for easy surgery. I have been using this stem for 25 years and continue to use it in all my primary noncemented cases. I believe in the adage of “train hard and fight easy.” I think that surgeons should not get themselves into a situation where they are forced in a difficult case to use something they have never seen before.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".