RETRIEVAL ANALYSIS OF OXIDISED ZIRCONIUM FEMORAL HEADS USED IN PRIMARY TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Detailed analysis of retrieved total hip replacements (THRs) is valuable for assessing implant and material successes and failures. Reduction of bearing wear and corrosion and fretting of the head-neck trunnion is essential to implant durability and patient health. This research quantifies and characterizes taper and bearing surface damage on retrieved oxidized zirconium THRs. Methods Initially, 11 retrieved oxidized zirconium femoral heads were examined along with their associated femoral stems. Relevant patient and retrieval data was collected from clinical charts and radiographs. Taper corrosion (Figure 1) and fretting damage (Figure 2) scoring was performed following the Dyrkacz [1] method. A coordinate measuring machine was used to obtain a detailed surface map of the male and female taper surfaces. Taper surface maps were best-fit with an idealized cone followed by volume subtraction to quantify the amount of material removed as a result of fretting and corrosion processes. Scanning electron microscopy was performed on select samples to identify specific damage modes. Unique surface bumps were noted on the articular surface of select femoral heads (Figure 3). Seventeen femoral heads were added to the analysis specifically for identification of these bumps. Articular surfaces were searched under SEM magnification and bumps were identified and counted. Parametric statistical correlations were performed with SAS v9.3. Results Mean patient age was 61 years (Range: 35–95) with mean implantation period being 2.0 years (Range: 0.1–11.4) and mean body mass index of 29 kg/m 2 (Range: 22–46). Revision for infection (n=11), peri-prosthetic fracture (n=5) and dislocation (n=5) were the main reasons for revision. Mean corrosion damage scores were 2.0 and 3.6 (head, neck) while mean fretting damage scores were 8.5 and 5.8 (head, neck). Fretting damage score was weakly correlated with implantation period (p=0.07) while corrosion damage score was not. Mean corrosion and fretting volume measured 0.40 mm 3 and 0.87 mm 3 (head, neck). Volume of corrosion and fretting damage did not correlate with implantation period; however neck volume correlated with inclination angle of the acetabular cup (p The unique surface bumps were identified in 12 of 28 samples, with 3 samples having Conclusion Fretting damage was found to correlate with implantation period, suggesting that is a continuous in vivo process; however, this was not found for corrosion damage. Fretting damage volume correlated with acetabular cup angle; however, this may be coincidence as only 8 samples were included in the analysis. Overall, our corrosion damage scores (2.0–3.6) were lower than previously published values for 28mm & 36mm cobalt-chrome heads (4.5–13.1) [1]. However, our fretting damage scores (5.8–8.5) were higher than previously published (2.8–4.4) [1]. Greater fretting damage on the oxidized zirconium heads may be explained by the softer zirconium alloy compared to that of cobalt-chromium. Further subsurface investigation of the surface bumps is underway using a focused ion beam mill.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".