Biomechanics of a cemented short stem: Standard vs. line-to-line cementation techniques. A biomechanical in-vitro study involving six osteoporotic pairs of human cadaver femurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) potentially offers advantages compared to conventional THA, including sparing bone and soft tissue and being a facilitated and less traumatic implantation. However, the indication is limited to patients with sufficient bone quality. Cemented short-stem THA might provide an alternative to conventional cemented THA. To date, no cemented short stem is available on the market. METHODS: In the present in vitro study, primary stability of a new cemented short stem was evaluated, comparing standard (undersized stem) versus line-to-line (same-sized stem) cementing techniques, using six pairs of human cadaver femurs. Primary stability, including reversible micromotion and irreversible migration, was assessed in a dynamic material-testing machine. Fracture load was tested and fracture pattern analyzed. FINDINGS: Both cementation techniques (standard vs. line-to-line) displayed comparable results with respect to primary stability without any statistical differences (micromotion: 17.5 μm vs. 9.6 μm (p = 0.063); migration: 9.5 μm vs. 38.2 μm (p = 0.188)). Regarding fracture load, again, no difference was observed (3670 N vs. 3687 N (p = 0.063)). In all cases, proximal fractures of Vancouver type B3 occurred. INTERPRETATION: The present in vitro study demonstrates that the line-to-line cementation technique, which is favourable regarding the philosophy of short stem THA, can be further pursued in the course of the development of a cemented short stem. Further investigations should address how well the cemented short stem compares to well-established cemented straight-stem designs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".