Thirteen-year wear rate comparison of highly crosslinked and conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to report the radiographic wear rates from a previous randomized controlled trial of first-generation highly crosslinked versus conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a minimum of 13 years’ follow-up. Methods: Patients returned for radiographic imaging and radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Radiographs were reviewed for the presence of osteolysis or component loosening. Femoral head penetration (which includes both wear and creep) was measured using RSA. We compared Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) and Harris Hip Scores (HHS) with preoperative values. Results: There was 1 revision in each group. There was no difference in WOMAC, SF-12, or HHS outcome scores between the highly crosslinked and conventional polyethylene groups (all p ≥ 0.13). Wear rate was lower with crosslinked polyethylene than conventional polyethylene (0.04 ± 0.02 mm/year v. 0.08 ± 0.03 mm/year, p = 0.007). Conclusion: First-generation crosslinked polyethylene demonstrates greater wear resistance than conventional polyethylene after 13 years of implantation. Crosslinked polyethylene continues to outperform conventional polyethylene into the second decade of implantation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".