Clinical Performance of Ultra-Short Anatomic Cementless Versus Fourth-Generation Cemented Femoral Stems for Hip Replacement in Octogenarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine how ultra-short anatomic cementless vs cemented femoral stems affect the survival of primary total hip arthroplasties in octogenarians. Specifically, the authors investigated whether ultra-short anatomic cementless and cemented femoral components would have similar (1) functional results, (2) radiographic results, (3) revision and survival rates, and (4) complication rates in octogenarians. The authors evaluated 93 consecutive octogenarians (98 hips) in the ultra-short stem group (mean age, 86.5±5.3 years) and 78 consecutive octogenarians (92 hips) in the cemented stem group (mean age, 85.7±5.8 years). The average follow-up was 8.1 years (range, 5-12 years) in the ultra-short anatomic cementless stem group and 7.8 years (range, 5-11 years) in the cemented stem group. Mean preoperative (39 vs 37 points) and postoperative (81 vs 83 points) Harris hip scores were similar in the 2 groups (P=.131 and .128, respectively). The incidence of thigh pain was 0% in both groups. At final follow-up, mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores (18 vs 14 points) and University of California, Los Angeles activity scores (4.3 vs 4.5 points) were similar in the 2 groups. The revision rate was 3% (3 hips) in the ultra-short stem group and 3% (3 hips) in the cemented stem group. Survivorship of the femoral stem was 97.3% at 8.1 years in the ultra-short stem group and 97.9% at 7.8 years in the cemented stem group (P=.136). Ultra-short anatomic cementless and cemented stems obtained rigid fixation in octogenarians. However, the incidence of undisplaced periprosthetic calcar fracture intraoperatively was significantly higher (P=.003) in the cemented stem group. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(4):e470-e478.].
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".