Survivorship of a modular acetabular cup system: medium- to long-term follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) requires components that meet a variety of patient factors and needs. This investigation evaluated survivorship of the PINNACLE Acetabular Cup System in primary total hip arthroplasty at 5-10 years.MethodsIn total, 1592 hips (1473 subjects) were enrolled in a multi-center, non-comparative, open-label study of the PINNACLE system: N = 896 metal-on-polyethylene (MOP), N = 667 metal-on-metal (MOM), N = 27 ceramic-on-polyethylene, and N = 2 unknown articulation. Harris Hip Score, Short Form 36, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and radiographs were collected through 10 years. Kaplan-Meier device survivorship was estimated.ResultsThere were 41 revisions (23 MOP, 17 MOM, 1 ceramic-on-polyethylene) through 10 years: 56.5% of MOP revisions were for instability and 41.2% of MOM revisions were for adverse local tissue reaction. Kaplan-Meier device survivorship (N with further follow-up) was 97.0% (N = 720) at 5 years and 94.7% (N = 77) at 10 years.ConclusionsMedium- to long-term survivorship estimates were similar or better than other studies and registries for the PINNACLE system.Level of EvidenceIII.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".