A systematic review of short metaphyseal loading cementless stems in hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Short-stemmed femoral implants have been used for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young and active patients to conserve bone, provide physiological loading, and reduce the incidence of thigh pain. Only short- to mid-term results have been presented and there have been concerns regarding component malalignment, incorrect sizing, and subsidence. This systematic review reports clinical and radiological outcomes, complications, revision rates, and implant survival in THA using short-stemmed femoral components. Materials and Methods A literature review was performed using the EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane databases. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to identify studies reporting clinical and radiological follow-up for short-stemmed hip arthroplasties. Results A total of 28 studies were eligible for inclusion. This included 5322 hips in 4657 patients with a mean age of 59 years (13 to 94). The mean follow-up was 6.1 years (0.5 to 20). The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 46 (0 to 100) to 92 (39 to 100). The mean Oxford Hip Score improved from 25 (2 to 42.5) to 35 (12.4 to 48). The mean Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index improved from 54 (2 to 95) to 22 (0 to 98). Components were aligned in a neutral coronal alignment in up to 90.9% of cases. A total of 15 studies reported component survivorship, which was 98.6% (92% to 100%) at a mean follow-up of 12.1 years. Conclusion Short-stemmed femoral implants show similar improvement in clinical and radiological outcomes compared with conventional length implants. Only mid-term survivorship, however, is known. An abundance of short components have been developed and used commercially without staged clinical trials. Long-term survival is still unknown for many of these components. There remains tension between innovation and the moral duty to ensure that the introduction of new implants is controlled until safety and patient benefit are demonstrated. Implant innovation and subsequent use should be driven by proven clinical outcomes, rather than market and financial forces, and ethical practice must be ensured. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:502–511.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".