Ten-year follow-up study of three alternative bearing surfaces used in total hip arthroplasty in young patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims We present the ten-year data of a cohort of patients, aged between 18 and 65 years (mean age 52.7 years; 19 to 64), who underwent total hip arthroplasty. Patients were randomised to be treated with a cobalt-chrome (CoCr) femoral head with an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) or ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearing surface. Patients and Methods A total of 102 hips (91 patients) were randomised into the three groups. At ten years, 97 hips were available for radiological and functional follow-up. Two hips (two patients) had been revised (one with deep infection and one for periprosthetic fracture) and three were lost to follow-up. Radiological analysis was performed using a validated digital assessment programme to give linear, directional and volumetric wear of the two polyethylene groups. Results There was a significantly reduced rate of steady-state linear wear with XLPE (0.07 mm/yr) compared with UHMWPE (0.37 mm/yr) (p = 0.001). Volumetric wear was also significantly reduced in the XLPE group (29.29 mm3/yr) compared with the UHMWPE group (100.75mm3/yr) (p = 0.0001). There were six patients with UHMWPE who had non-progressive osteolysis and none in the XLPE group. All three bearing groups had significant improvements in 12-item short form health survey scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score and Harris Hip Score. However, the improvement in HSS was significantly less in the UHMWPE group (p = 0.0188) than in the other two groups. At ten years, the rates of volumetric and linear wear in the XLPE group remain low and predominantly below the estimated threshold for osteolysis (1 mm/yr). The rate of linear wear in the XLPE group was three times less than in the UHMWPE group at five-year follow-up and five times less at ten years. The rate of volumetric wear was also three times less in the XLPE group at ten years. Conclusion While CoC also performs well, XLPE at ten years remains a safe and excellent bearing option in young patients, with low rates of wear and no evidence of osteolysis. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1590–5.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".