Comparing In Vivo Performance of Two Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene Thermal Treatments: Remelting vs Annealing in Acetabular Liners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The introduction of highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) acetabular liners has greatly improved the wear performance of metal-on-PE bearing surfaces used in total hip arthroplasty. Changing the sterilization environment and adding thermal treatments, such as remelting or annealing, were introduced to limit on-shelf and in vivo oxidation of cross-linked liners. This study compares the wear properties of the remelted A-CLASS (MicroPort) HXLPE liner to a sequentially annealed HXLPE. METHODS: This retrospective study assessed linear and volumetric wear rates using Martell Hip Analysis Suite, and clinical performance through incidences of revision surgeries. A total of 80 remelted and 53 annealed liners were included in the wear analysis. All hips were reviewed for revisions. RESULTS: /y (P = .30), respectively. Both cohorts were below the 0.1 mm/y linear wear threshold. The wear rates for patients with femoral head sizes ≥36 mm were not significantly different than those with 32 and 28 mm femoral head sizes (P = .60). Similarly, wear rates for patients with an excessively vertical acetabular component (>50°) were not significantly different than those with standard acetabular component orientations (P = .97). No hips were revised due to liner-related complications. CONCLUSION: The wear rates of the A-CLASS remelted HXLPE acetabular liner wear rates were comparable to those of a sequentially annealed HXLPE. Further long-term studies are required to ensure acceptable resistance to fatigue and in vivo oxidation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".