HOW DOES SURGICAL VARIATION IN STEM PLACEMENT AFFECT THE PRIMARY STABILITY OF CEMENTLESS FEMORAL STEMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Successful designs of total hip replacement need to be robust to surgery-related variability. Until recently, only simple parametric studies have explored the influence of surgical variability [1]. This study presents a systematic method for quantifying the effect of variability in positioning on the primary stability of femoral stems using finite element (FE) models. Methods Patient specific finite element models were generated of two femurs, one male and one female. An automated algorithm positioned and sized a Corail stem (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw) into each of the femurs to achieve maximum fill of the medullary canal without breaching into the cortical bone boundaries.. Peak joint contact and muscle forces associated with level gait were applied[2] and scaled to the body mass of each subject, whilst the distal femur was rigidly constrained. The space prone to surgical variation was defined by the “gap” between the stem and the inner boundary of the cortical bone. The anterior/posterior and the varus/valgus alignment of the stem within this “gap” was controlled by varying the location of the points defining the shaft axis. The points were taken at 20% and 80% of the stem length (Figure 1). The anteversion angle as well as the vertical and the medial position of the stem were controlled by changing the location of the head centre within the femoral head radius. The location of these points was varied using Latin Hypercube sampling to generate 200 models per femur, each with a unique stem position. The risk of failure was evaluated based on stem micromotion, equivalent strains, and percentage of the bone-prosthesis contact area experiencing more than 7000 µstrains [3]. Results The range of positions covered in this study adhered to the anatomy of the subjects (Table 1) and none of the stem positions breached into the cortical bone of the femur. The 90th percentile peri-prosthetic strains were between 1770 – 4792 µstrains for the male subject, and 2710 – 11260µstrains for the female subject. The 90th percentile micromotion was between (15.6 – 47) µm for the male subject, and (42.4 – 102.4) µm for the female subject. The percentage of the contact area experiencing more than 7000 µstrains was between (0% – 0.33%) for the male subject, and (0% – 12%) for the female subject. Discussion A systematic method for studying the effect of surgical-related variation on primary stability was presented its applicability demonstrated on two femurs. The study found that variation in stem position may result in large variation (up to 1.5 times the baseline position) in strains and micromotions. The magnitude Up to three times the magnitudes for the ideal stem position. This method can be applied to larger samples to understand the influence of different alignment parameters on the primary stability of femoral stems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".