The 10-year outcomes of the ASR XL Acetabular System: a single-center experience from China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The revision rate of articular surface replacement (ASR) implants continues to rise in China because of metal debris. However, there are few reports on the clinical results of ASR implants with prolonged follow-up time in China. This study investigated the clinical outcomes and the risk factors of revision surgery in patients with ASR implants. METHODS: In total, 74 patients (74 hips) who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with ASR implants over the past 4 to 10 years were retrospectively analyzed. Relevant clinical, radiographic, and biochemical data were examined. RESULTS: The average follow-up time was 88.46 (range 23-114) months, and the ASR implants of 18 hips (24.3%) were revised. Patients who received revision surgery had worse joint function with significantly lower Harris Hip Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities index than non-revision patients (61.11 ± 6.68 vs 85.30 ± 9.16, p < 0.001; 61.00 ± 3.83 vs 79.04 ± 14.49, p < 0.001; respectively). Higher acetabular abduction angle and serum Co and Cr concentration were significantly relevant to worse joint function as measured by HSS (p = 0.018, 0.009, 0.043, respectively). ROC curve analysis was applied to categorize the optimal cutoff values of acetabular abduction angle and serum Cr and Co concentration for revision surgery, which were settled as 47.80°, 98.44 μg/L, and 6.95 μg/L, respectively. Overall survival of the prostheses with high acetabular abduction angle (> 47.80°, HR = 70.145, 95% CI 1.558-3158.213, p = 0.029), high serum Cr concentration (98.44 μg/L, HR = 58.956, 95% CI 1.294-2685.203, p = 0.036), and high serum Co concentration (> 6.95 μg/L, HR = 179.511, 95% CI 2.360-13656.941, p = 0.019) decreased significantly than the lower groups. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the DePuy ASR XL articulation demonstrated increased rates of revision following a longer follow-up period. High acetabular abduction angle and serum Cr and Co concentration correlated with worse clinical outcomes and high revision rate. Therefore, we advocate that patients with DePuy ASR XL implants be followed up more closely than those with other implants, especially with high acetabular abduction angle and serum Cr or Co concentration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".