Could larger diameter of 4th generation ceramic bearing increase the rate of squeaking after THA?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and bearing-specific complications in a single center of 135 delta ceramic-on-ceramic (COC) total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and explore the occurrence rate of squeaking in 4th generation COC THAs and collate the risk factors for squeaking.We retrospectively analyzed consecutive cohorts of 127 patients (135 hips) who had primary THA with delta COC bearings in our hospital between April 2010 and April 2012. Preoperative Harris hip score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively. We also evaluated ceramic fracture, squeak, mid-term results, and survival.In our study, the final patient final follow-up date was July 31, 2016. The mean preoperative HHS improved from 39.5 to 93.1 points. Mean preoperative UCLA score was 3.2 points, improving to 8.2 points. The mean preoperative total WOMAC score was 55.5 points and the mean total WOMAC score was 13.3 points at the final follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier survival plot of revision for any reason as the end point was 98.5% and survival with ceramic fracture as the end point was 99.2% at a mean of 70 months' follow-up. One post-operative ceramic liner rim fracture occurred at 50 months after surgery. Thirteen of the 135 hips produced a squeaking sound. There were no significant differences in gender (P = .56), age (P = .20), body mass index (BMI) (P = .11), diagnosis (P = .46), cup inclination (P = .36), or cup anteversion (P = 1.0) between the squeaking and non-squeaking groups. However, the incidence of squeaking in the 36 mm COC femoral head bearings was higher than in the 28 mm size (13.6% vs 2.1%, P = .033).The 4th generation COC bearing performed well and provides an encouraging rate of survival with no osteolysis or loosening. However, we found that a squeaking sound associated with use of the delta ceramic occurred at a rate of 9.6%, with the larger-diameter heads having significantly higher incidence.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".