Bibliographic record
Abstract
The initial success of modern total hip arthroplasty can in large part be attributed to the reliable fixation of the femoral component with the use of acrylic bone cement. Early success with cement led to a common pathway of development in North America and the European countries. Much of the early to mid-term research concentrated on refinement of variables related to the methodology and technique of cement fixation. Scandinavian registries were subsequently able to report on improved survivorship with better cementing technique. The net effect has been standardisation towards a small number of cemented implants with good long-term outcomes representing the majority of stems implanted in Sweden, for example. In North America, during the mid-term development of THA in the late 1980's, the term “cement disease” was coined and the cemented THA saw a precipitous decline in use, now to the point where many American orthopaedic residents are completing training never having seen a cemented THA. Modern uncemented femoral components can now claim good long-term survivorship, perhaps now comparable to cemented fixation. However, this has come at a cost with respect to the premium expense applied to the implant itself as well as lineage of failed uncemented constructs. The last several years have seen a proliferation of uncemented implants, usually at a premium cost, with no demonstrated improvement in survivorship. Osteolysis has not been solved with uncemented implants and cement disease has largely been recognised as a misnomer. Long-term outcomes of cemented femoral fixation have consistently demonstrated excellent survivorship, even in the younger age group. Cemented stems allow for variable positioning of the stem to allow for better soft tissue balancing, without the need for proximal modularity. Cemented stems are more forgiving and fail less often secondary to a reduced incidence of intra-operative complications, such as peri-prosthetic fracture. Cemented stems tend to be less expensive and also have the advantage of adding antimicrobial agents into the cement. This is important in emerging markets. The next iteration of orthopaedic innovation driven by the emerging markets may indeed be back to the future. Key Points: The initial success of total hip arthroplasty was based on cemented femoral fixation. Long-term outcomes in the United States demonstrate good results for cemented femoral fixation. Despite this, cemented fixation is not frequently used in the United States. Results from multiple national joint replacement registries demonstrate superior long-term performance of cemented femoral fixation. European countries, perhaps because of the excellent results in the national registries, use cemented femoral fixation more often than not. Cemented femoral fixation is cost neutral if not less expensive and allows for the addition of antimicrobials. Cemented femoral fixation is perhaps easier to perform as the component can be potted in a range of positions as opposed to the position being dictated by the femoral anatomy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".