Midterm outcome of fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces in revision total hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearing surfaces. METHODS: A total of 52 revision THAs (28 men and 19 women) using the fourth-generation CoC bearing surfaces were retrospectively evaluated. Both acetabular cup and femoral stem were revised in all cases. The mean follow-up period was 7.3 years (range, 4.0-9.9 years). The clinical results with Harris hip score (HHS), Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and radiologic outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: At the final follow-up examination, the average HHS was 90.4 (range, 67-100). The average WOMAC pain and physical function score were 2.8 (range, 0-12) and 16.4 (range, 0-42), respectively. Complications were observed in 10 hips (19.2%). However, there were no bearing surface-related complications, and no cases of dislocation and squeaking. Retroacetabular pelvic osteolysis without cup loosening was observed in one hip at the final follow-up. However, no hip showed radiographic signs of cup loosening, vertical or horizontal acetabular cup migrations, and changes of inclinations during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Our data showed that clinical and radiologic outcomes after revision THA using fourth-generation CoC bearing were favorable. Hence, revision THA with the use of CoC bearing surfaces can be preferentially considered. Further studies with long-term follow-up data are warranted.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".