Isolated revision of the acetabular component using alumina-on-alumina bearings without a metal sleeve: A preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There has been a debate on the use of ceramic-on-ceramic coupling with the retained femoral stem in isolated acetabular revision. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively review the results and complications of isolated revision of the acetabular component using alumina-on-alumina bearings. METHODS: Between August 2010 and December 2013, 22 patients (23 hips) with a mean age of 60.74 years (40-73) underwent isolated revision of the acetabular component from metal-on-polyethylene to alumina-on-alumina bearings without using a metal sleeve on the undamaged trunnion. All patients completed clinical and radiographic evaluation. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 3 years (2-5.5), all patients had a significant improvement in the clinical outcome, including Harris Hip Score (84.9 vs. 43, p < 0.001), West Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index Score (14.4 vs. 49.2, p < 0.001), and visual analogue pain score (1.42 vs. 6.63, p < 0.001). Complications included one aseptic loosening of the acetabular component and three noisy hips (click only). No fracture of the ceramic bearings, dislocation, infection, or squeaking noise were observed in any of the patients. CONCLUSION: Isolated revision of the acetabular component to alumina-on-alumina bearings on the undamaged trunnion may be considered if there is no available titanium sleeves. Our study showed a satisfactory early outcome with minimal complications. However, a longer term follow-up study is necessary.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".