Evidence Based Recommendations for Reducing Head-Neck Taper Connection Fretting Corrosion in Hip Replacement Prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review seeks to summarise the published studies investigating prosthetic design, manufacture and surgical technique's effect on fretting corrosion at the head-neck taper connection, and provide clinical recommendations to reduce its occurrence. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases were searched using the terms taper, trunnion, cone and head-neck junction. Articles investigating prosthetic design, manufacture and surgical technique's effect on fretting corrosion were retrieved, reviewed and graded according to OCEBM levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1,224 unique articles, and 91 were included in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: There is fair evidence to recommend against the use of high offset femoral heads, larger diameter femoral heads, and to pay particular consideration to fretting corrosion's progression with time and risk with heavier or more active patients. Particular to metal-on-metal hip prostheses, there is fair evidence to recommend positioning the acetabular component to minimise edge loading. Particular to metal-on-polyethylene hip prostheses, there is fair evidence to recommend the use of ceramic femoral heads, against use of cast cobalt alloy femoral heads, and against use of low flexural rigidity femoral stems. Evidence related to taper connection design is largely conflicting or inconclusive. Head-neck taper connection fretting corrosion is a multifactorial problem. Strict adherence to the guidelines presented herein does not eliminate the risk. Prosthesis selection is critical, and well-controlled studies to identify each design parameter's relative contribution to head-neck taper connection fretting corrosion are required.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".