Midterm outcomes of total hip arthroplasty with a modular Birmingham head
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implants may be combined with a conventional femoral stem to create a modular metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (BHR MoM THA). There is little outcome data regarding this construct. This study examines midterm outcomes of BHR MoM THA compared to oxidised zirconium total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods: A retrospective institutional review identified all patients receiving BHR MoM THA between April 2005 and February 2011 and a matched control cohort of zirconium THA patients. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Harris Hip Score (HHS), and SF-12 Health status scores were obtained. Revisions and complications were collected from clinical records. Radiographs were assessed for evidence of component malposition, loosening, osteolysis, or heterotopic ossification. Results: 63 modular BHR MoM THA were identified in 61 patients (36 with BHR cups, 27 with R3 cups) and 63 zirconium THA in 58 matched controls. Mean follow-up was 58 months. 14 BHR MoM THA hips (22.2%) were revised (4 infections, 1 dislocation, 9 soft tissue reactions) compared to 3 (4.8%) zirconium THA (all infections). At latest follow-up, 18.4% of surviving BHR MoM THA hips were painful compared to 0.5% of zirconium THA controls ( p < 0.001). WOMAC, HHS, and SF-12 did not differ significantly between surviving members of the 2 groups. Discussion: BHR MoM THA demonstrated a high revision rate, largely for adverse local soft tissue reaction and pain. Among those not revised, many reported some residual pain despite similar quality of life measures to those who received zirconium THA.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".